Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Textiles (Import Penetration)

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the level of import penetration in textiles for 1983.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): Forty-two per cent.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that Portugal is breaching a number of agreements that had been made with the European Community and that that action is severely damaging British industry? Will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider informing Portugal that it will not be made welcome as a partner in the EEC unless it changes its attitude and lives up to the agreements that it has made?

Mr. Lamont: I am aware of that point. Yesterday, a meeting was held between the Portuguese and the Commission at which it was made absolutely clear that the Commission and the United Kingdom Government view seriously over-shipment of the restraint levels, especially from a potential member of the Community. It was made clear also that adjustment of the restraint levels that had been agreed for 1984 would be necessary to take account of those over-shipments. The Portuguese have outlined proposals for strengthening their export administration, which, it is hoped, will lead to better observance of the agreement. We shall watch this matter closely. Further consultation on this point will be needed later in the year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the answer by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Does my hon. Friend accept that, on the other side of the coin, great problems are being faced by British cotton spinners because of the imposition of value added tax on imports of raw cotton, which will impose additional costs on the spinners at a time when the industry, which is vital to our textile industry, is beginning a recovery?

Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. He knows that VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The changes announced by my right hon. Friend received full support from British industry.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the textile industry in Leicester and similar places, which is so vital,

is just starting to pick up again after a disastrous slump, and that import penetration remains a major worry for all parts of that industry? What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to ensure that the arrangements are applied fairly to and by all countries?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Imports have increased alarmingly recently, but at the same time the domestic outlook for the industry is quite good. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, last year output increased by about 3 per cent. In some sectors, such as wool textiles, there has been a marked increase in exports. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows also that the degree of protection given to the industry is unsurpassed by any other industry. We shall ensure that the multi-fibre arrangement is rigorously observed.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a change in VAT legislation should help British manufacturers to compete more effectively against importers of finished goods?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there seem to be divided views on this matter. I believe that my hon. Friend's view accords more fully with that of the majority of British industry.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that a number of non-EEC importers are using false certificates of origin to evade the quotas? What steps has the hon. Gentleman asked Customs and Excise to take to verify that certificates of origin genuinely relate to EEC imports?

Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me examples, I shall see that the matter is vigorously pursued. A number of instances have been investigated and, where a case has been proved, action has been taken.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the textile industry is already our most protected industry? Does he agree that the overriding interest of the United Kingdom as a trading nation is to stand against protectionism, and will he ensure that that is done?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Sit down.

Mr. Carlisle: In addition, does my hon. Friend agree that with a Third world we have a duty to provide markets for some of the poorest countries?[Interruption.]

Mr. Lamont: If I may be allowed to intrude into the argument between the Back Benches, I confirm that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, it is true that the textile industry is our most protected industry. There is also the serious point that our clothing industry, which, with the textile industry, is one of our largest employers and exporters, must have access to the best fabrics and to a choice of materials.

Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that 42 per cent. import penetration represents a marked increase since the Conservatives came to power, and that the trade deficit in textiles in the first quarter of this year represents an annual rate of £1,200 million compared with only £250 million in 1979? Does he agree that that shows a calamitous fall in output, competitiveness, efficiency and in the jobs available to British people in the textile industry? Does he further agree that the scheme for £20 million capital aid, described as "modest" by the British Textile


Confederation, is derisory and that it is time that the Government produced a policy so that we may look forward to a thriving British textile industry in the future?

Mr. Lamont: I have already said that the rise in imports is a matter for concern. It is significant, however, that in the main the increase has come not from the low-cost countries but from the high-cost countries, with which we should be able to compete in design and quality if our industry is efficient. It is because our industry has so often been lacking in those areas that the increased deficit has developed.
I agree that the scheme for assistance to the clothing and textile industry and for investment in small firms in that industry is indeed modest, but we should recognise the many advantages of trading in this country for such firms. Compared with France, Belgium and Italy, we have much lower interest rates and inflation. That is an enormous competitive advantage for our industry.

Computer Devices (COCOM Approval)

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether agreement has yet been reached with the United States of America and other COCOM countries about the details of computer devices requiring COCOM approval before export.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): Not yet—but talks are going on at the present time.

Mr. Ashdown: As the outcome of the talks will have a profound effect on British high technology industry, and as the Pentagon publishes regular briefing papers on the progress of the talks so that the United States industry can comment, will the Minister consider providing a similar service for British industry and others so that they can comment on what is happening in COCOM?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I should be reluctant to say exactly what we hope to achieve in the negotiations, as that would reveal too much of our negotiating hand.

Mr. Adley: In the course of research for this question, did my right hon. Friend refer back to my Adjournment debate in 1974 on COCOM and the American Government's attitude to it? Does he accept that in many cases the Americans take a very restrictive and self-centred view of the COCOM list and organise things to suit their own industry? Will he ensure that we are more discriminating and intelligent in the way in which we interpret the list?

Mr. Channon: I certainly agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. I must confess that his Adjournment debate in 1974 has eluded me so far, but I shall make sure that I read it this afternoon. I am sure that, as usual, my hon. Friend was ahead of the times.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a short, highly selective list of high technology items which all countries in the Western Alliance and Japan agree should be kept from the Warsaw pact for as long as is practicable, but that secrecy and possessiveness among countries belonging to the same alliance is deplorable, and that policies that represent a respectable cloak for trade protectionism are equally deplorable?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I must make the point that COCOM works on the basis of unanimity. We must get unanimous agreement before any changes can be made. We are trying to negotate along the lines that my hon. Friend is seeking.

Mr. Shore: COCOM certainly makes sense, but surely the Minister must accept that it would be far better for Britain to choose and make clear its own decision on which items to ban, rather than have that decision made for it simply because American and other multinational companies are operating through British subsidiaries. Should not the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the future of INMOS, an independent British firm, with independent British transputer capacity? It would be disastrous if that were allowed to fall into foreign hands.

Mr. Channon: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, INMOS was debated in the House last week. Most impartial observers thought that the right hon. Gentleman had rather the worst of the debate.

Alvey Programme (Information Technology)

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many collaborative projects have received approval under the Alvey programme for advanced information technology.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Forty-seven projects had received technical approval under the Alvey programme by the beginning of June, representing £60 million out of the £200 million of public commitment to the programme. Of these, 30 were full collaborative projects and the remainder were academic projects with industry monitoring the work. Contract negotiations are in progress on these projects, with the work proceeding on many of them.

Mr. Hamilton: The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Is he satisfied with the level of cooperation between industry, the universities and his Department? What does he propose to do to encourage the expansion of this excellent programme?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. This is by far the most important research and development programme undertaken in Britain since the war—probably since the development of the jet engine. It is unique because of the co-operation between competitive companies and between companies and universities. I am satisfied that that co-operation is working well. As they are unique, the projects have taken some time to get off the ground. I must emphasise the unique importance of the research and development programme.

Dr. Bray: What proportion of the money committed to the project will go to small firms and to highly innovative projects which were proposed by universities in the first place? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money will go to support genuinely new projects which would not otherwise have been undertaken, rather than to subsidise large firms to do what they would have done anyway?

Mr. Baker: I am satisfied that some of the projects that I announced about a week ago would not have been undertaken without the programme. The work on the word processor that can receive voice input and other work of


that sort, as well as the mobile system of telecommunications, would not have been undertaken without the research programme.
I do not have in my head the exact figures for small companies, but I shall try to extract them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is tremendous co-operation from our universities, with teams tending to be of two or three people. The Edinburgh artificial intelligence unit, which is a world leader in this area, is heavily involved, as are Imperial College and Surrey and Loughborough universities.

Computer-aided Design and Test Equipment Support Scheme

Mr. Sumberg: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will ensure the continuation of the computer-aided design and test equipment support scheme after August.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): No, Sir. The computer aided design and test equipment support scheme was closed in March of this year. There are no plans for its continuation.

Mr. Sumberg: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is not the scheme's success reason enough to continue it? Is he aware that it is essential for the Government to support, especially in the north-west of England, schemes which will help companies to move into the new technology and away from the old?

Mr. Butcher: I appreciate the reasons for my hon. Friend's question, especially in the context of the northwest. However, at some stage we must decide, especially on cash-limited programmes, where pump-priming is legitimate and whether it should end if recovery begins to gather momentum, or whether the schemes should become permanent subsidies to underpin decisions which companies may already be tempted to make as part of their business plans. The shift of spending within the DTI is towards support for innovation programmes generally.

British Telecom

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the prospectus for the sale of shares in British Telecom plc.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): A week or two before the closing date for acceptances of the offer for sale.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the fiasco of Enterprise Oil last week, does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's best policy now would be not to publish the prospectus for BT until they have initiated a full public inquiry into all their flotations of public shares? Would not such an inquiry reveal the pathetic, bumbling incompetence of the Secretary of State? Would it not show that the Government's policies have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds—and, in the case of British Telecom, given its size, would cost the British public hundreds of millions of pounds? Is it not the Secretary of State's duty to conduct such an inquiry?

Mr. Tebbit: As far as I can disinter the half dozen or so muddled questions put by the hon. Gentleman, my answers must be no, no, no and no.

Mr. Budgen: Are the purchases of BT shares likely to be at a higher, or lower, price as a result of the Government blocking the first application by Rio Tinto-Zinc for the shares of Enterprise Oil?

Mr. Tebbit: The price offered for BT by investors will be set by their view of the company's prospects. Inevitably, there will be those who will look carefully, and rightly so, at any restrictions which the Government may place upon the maximum number of shares to be held by any one investor. Such limits may discourage some investors and encourage others. Therefore, my hon. Friend's question is difficult to answer.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State accept that because of the happenings over the sale of Enterprise Oil, the only way in which BT can be floated on the market in the present environment is if a substantial discount is offered on the price? Would that not constitute even worse asset-stripping than we have already seen? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman defer the sale of BT beyond the end of the year?

Mr. Tebbit: There has been no asset-stripping, so the hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false premise.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy dealt more than adequately on Tuesday with the launch of Enterprise Oil. I have nothing to add to what they said.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospectus for the shares of BT will show clearly that it is worth buying into that company, especially as it will maintain the facilities and service of which we are so proud?

Mr. Tebbit: The important point about all the privatisations is that underlined on television on Sunday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), that every one of the companies that has been denationalised has performed better under its new private sector ownership than it did in the public sector.

Mr. Shore: In the light of experience of the various efforts to sell publicly-owned assets—on the one hand Amersham International being 29 times over-subscribed on a fixed price sale, with quick killings for the profit seekers, and on the other Enterprise Oil being a fiasco with 70-odd per cent. of its shares left with the underwriters —does the Secretary of State not believe that he should carefully reconsider the Government's strategy?
It is not good enough to say now, in the light of that experience, that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to sell BT on anything like the same terms that were available before the Enterprise Oil fiasco occurred. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot postpone or stop the whole operation, would not the best way to proceed be initially to float a very much smaller proportion of the shares?

Mr. Tebbit: That is an unusually puerile suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman. The objective of privatisation is that companies should be taken out of state control and put back into true public ownership.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fiasco of Enterprise Oil—a circumstance in which my right hon. Friend obtained a price for the company which was more than the market believed it was worth. If that is a fiasco, it is the sort of fiasco in which many sellers would like to be involved.

Regional Industrial Development

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will place in the Library a list of all submissions received in response to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the responses he has received to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister confirm that he has received from areas such as the south-west many representations of a high calibre which make sense economically and socially? If that is typical of the country, does it not suggest that an effective programme of regional policy should be maintained by the Government?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper states that the Government intend to maintain an effective regional policy. I confirm that I have received many representations from the south-west and that they are of very good quality.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that the representations show less anxiety about the reorganisation of regional policy than about the drastic cuts in it at a time when we need investment and have record unemployment? Will he acknowledge that there is real anxiety that many of our traditionally based industries will be cut off from Government help when they need it most, the consequences of which will be increased unemployment, especially in rural and remote areas? Will he recognise that his revision of regional policy is a disaster for future investment and employment?

Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know how he can say that the policy is a disaster before we have reached any decisions. With regard to representations, we have received some that urge us to scrap regional policy altogether.

Mr. Ward: May I remind my hon. Friend that many people believe that regional aid should be scrapped? It distorts management decisions and, in the past, has been used to subsidise, at the expense of taxpayers in constituencies such as mine, developments which would have been undertaken.

Mr. Lamont: I see that there is as much unanimity on the Back Benches on this question as there is on protecting the textile industry. My hon. Friend knows that at the general election we said that we would maintain an effective regional policy. We believe that much-money has been wasted on regional policy and that we can get better value for money. There is no point in spending huge sums of money shuffling jobs from one area to another.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister describe the precise link between the current review of travel-to-work areas and the definition of assisted areas, which is expected in the autumn? Will he assure the House that any changes in the boundaries of travel-to-work areas in places such as Bradford, which will reduce the rate of unemployment, will not be used to strip away assisted area status from such places?

Mr. Lamont: The link is that the travel-to-work areas are the building blocks of the assisted area map. Until we

have the redefined travel-to-work areas, which we shall have at the end of this month, we cannot redraw the map. I cannot give guarantees about a particular area, because the travel-to-work area is the basis on which all decisions must be made.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), most countries in the Economic Community have substantially more extensive regional policies than we have? Does he realise that many companies are in a state of uncertainty? They are waiting for an announcement and are holding back investment decisions until they know what will happen. Will he tell the House when the announcement will be made?

Mr. Lamont: I, of course, accept that this matter is bound to cause a degree of uncertainty. We are getting on with it as quickly as possible. It depends upon the revision of the travel-to-work areas. We then have to do the work on the map. We hope to make a decision as quickly as we can in the autumn.

Mr. Neale: I urge my hon. Friend to refresh his mind on the debate that took place in the House on this subject in relation to the West Country recently. Will he take note of the comment made over and over again by Conservative Members about the need for his consideration to take into account communications, and road communications in particular? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that subject?

Mr. Lamont: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. Many people feel that investment in infrastructure is one of the most effective ways of helping the regions. It is often much more effective than grants.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the MSC is handling its review of travel-to-work areas? St. Helens council was given only eight days in which to respond to the proposition that the borough of St. Helens should be split into three different travel-to-work areas. That is unacceptable nonsense. Will he give a guarantee that he will reject the proposal when it comes before him?

Mr. Lamont: Travel-to-work areas are a matter for the Department of Employment, not the MSC. I shall, of course, look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Would it not be better to make the whole country a development area and concentrate our assistance on an industry-by-industry, case-by-case basis, so that we obtain value for money?

Mr. Lamont: We should not be able to do that and qualify for any money from the European regional development fund. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friends take in that point. Nor should we be able to maintain a system of incentives alone for inward investment. That has to be related to regional policy, and that is clearly laid down under the competition rules within the Community.

Mr. Wilson: Has the Minister noticed, from Scottish representations, the fear and alarm at the idea that this review is no more than an attack on the share of resources for industrial development that Scotland receives? Will


he, therefore, give an assurance to the House of Commons now that under no circumstances will Scotland's share be reduced, when we have 330,000 people out of work?

Mr. Lamont: I do not know whether deliberately or accidentally, but the hon. Gentleman interprets everything that is said in the House as an attack on Scotland and its share of resources. Surely the hon. Gentleman should recognise that when such huge sums of money have been spent on regional policy, with no obvious benefit, it is right that there should be a review of how cost-effective that aid has been. We cannot give guarantees to any areas because we must take into account the high rates of unemployment in many areas which at present are not assisted.

Mr. Harris: When considering those high-calibre representations from the south-west, particularly from the hon. Member for St. Ives, will my hon. Friend ensure that any local authority which stands to lose its assisted area status or be downgraded is given adequate opportunity to make representations before the order is laid before the House, as the House will not be able to amend the order?

Mr. Lamont: It is for hon. Members to represent. The whole purpose of the consultation period through which we are now going is for individual areas and their Members of Parliament to make representations. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not exactly backward at doing that, because we have received over 460 different submissions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the prospect of the implementation of the Government's proposals contained in the White Paper is causing deep anguish and anxiety in Cumbria? Is the Minister further aware that he has no moral authority to come forward with proposals which will effectively terminate regional aid to parts of the northern region and maintain high levels of unemployment which are unacceptable in a modern society? When he reviews all the communications that he has received from his hon. Friends asking for cuts in regional aid, will he remember that what he proposes will keep people on the dole in my constituency, and that is unacceptable?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is just jumping to conclusions. I have made no proposals relating to any area at the moment. We have made it clear that those areas which have a strong case based on the highest levels of unemployment will continue to be assisted. That is the moral authority that we have.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to correct himself? Two decisions have already been taken amounting to cuts of £200 million by the removal of replacement and non-job-creating modernisation schemes from the Government's regional policy. Those decisions were taken in advance of consultation. Will he confirm that none of the documents that have argued for a regional policy have agreed with that decision taken in advance of consultations? Will he therefore review that decision after consultation?

Mr. Lamont: No, Some people have supported the decision with which the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I stand by what I said earlier—no decisions about the map have been made.

Mr. Williams: Do not the questions that have so far been asked show that on the question of consultation the

Government are getting themselves into a terrible tangle with the House? It is only a matter of weeks before the recess and we still do not know the Government's intentions. Does not the fact that the boundaries order, which is due to be introduced in the autumn, will have immediate effect mean that any debate in the House will occur after the event? Shall we not be dealing with a fait accompli? If the only debate on the details is the debate on the order, hon. Members will have a mere one and a half hours, minus two speeches from the Minister, in which to make their representations. Because of the Government's persistent secrecy in regard to their intentions on the boundaries, any debate before the order will occur in a vacuum, because no hon. Member will know the Government's intentions for his constituency.

Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He must not assume that a matter of this importance will be disposed of in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation, but today's questions have revealed that a protracted consultation period results in many hon. Members being determined to make representations for their areas.

Telecommunications Equipment

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to ensure that British telecommunications equipment manufacturers are not discriminated against in countries whose own manufacturers are at present enjoying increased access to the British market.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government have strongly backed the European Commission's initiative to establish a Community telecommunications policy, and in particular to develop harmonised standards for terminal equipment. British manufacturers are already showing a more competitive stance in a number of world markets as a result of our liberalisation policies.

Mr. Oppenheim: Has not the liberalisation of British Telecom been of the greatest benefit to consumers and to businesses, on which employment depends? However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that many British manufacturers are deeply worrid by the unreciprocated access that overseaas manufacturers have to the United Kingdom market. For example, BT currently distributes a Japanese key system, but British manufacturers have no reciprocal access to the Japanese market.

Mr. Baker: Of the 365 products that have been liberalised, the United Kingdom content is rather more than 70 per cent. We have tried to ensure that, when foreign equipment is approved, there are commitments to manufacture and develop that equipment in the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. Friend of what I said in my original answer. In Europe we must establish a common market in such equipment, otherwise our manufacturers will be at a disadvantage.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about Japan?

Mr. Baker: I was about to mention Japan. Very little Japanese telecommunications equipment is sold in the United Kingdom at the moment. For equipment which we have approved we have received undertakings that, if the market takes off, it will be manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that there is much talk about a link between BT and IBM? Is he aware that such a link would massively increase IBM's growing monopoly in the market place? Will the House have an opportunity to scrutinise any such link? What is the Government's attitude to it?

Mr. Baker: If there were such a link between BT and IBM in a network operation, it would require a separate licence and a consultative period during which views of the House and other interested parties would be taken. We are anxious about that type of development. That is why I took an initiative in Europe to establish what is called an open systems interconnect — a common standard into which a variety of manufacturers can link so that there is compatibility. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point as regards the viability of European industry in the next 10 years.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give an estimate of the effect on trade and current national industrial performance of the present coal industry dispute.

Mr. Tebbit: The whole House will be pleased to know that the dispute has had no effect on the output and performance of the vast majority of United Kingdom industries. Imports of oil, coal and coke have increased and there has been some reduction in steel exports.

Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that last month, and in May, the balance of payments worsened by about £200 million as a result of additional oil imports? Is it not also a fact that industrial production is being hit by increased energy costs? Will the Secretary of State use all of his tact and diplomacy — [HON. MEMBERS: "And charm."] — to persuade the Secretary of State for Energy that it is in the national interest for him to intervene to bring the dispute in the coal mining industry to a speedy conclusion?

Mr. Tebbit: Although it is difficult to say how much influence the miners strike has had upon the import of oil and how much of the change in the balance of payments has been due to stockpiling, possibly because of concern about events in the Gulf, there is little doubt that Mr. Scargill—and it is presumably what he wanted to do—has had great success in converting much of Britain's industry and power generation from coal to oil. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use all his powers of tact and persuasion to get Mr. Scargill to come to the negotiating table without any preconditions——

Mr. Ron Davies: He has offered to.

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Scargill has not yet offered to do so without preconditions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use all the tact and diplomacy at his command to support Mr. Bill Sirs and the steel workers, as well as the transport workers and the 60,000 Coal Board employees still at work, instead of just backing the minority clique of Scargill.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most devastating effect on British trade and industry would be caused by the surrender to, or appeasement of, a violent minority of the mineworkers' union? Will he give an assurance that the Department and the Government as a whole will not encourage any surrender or intervention along those lines?

Mr. Tebbit: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Such a surrender would also put the miners who are at work—all told, about 60,000 Coal Board employees are working in the collieries—as well as the steel workers, at the mercy of a bunch of most ruthless and violent bullies.

Mr. Barron: If 60,000 miners are working and 120,000 miners are on strike and the latter, and particularly their families, are being penalised by the Government, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that those 60,000 at work are the majority?

Mr. Tebbit: I referred not merely to the mineworkers but to the 70,000 steel workers in the British Steel Corporation and the transport workers who are loyally carrying coal to help that industry to survive. Anyway, we do not know what the majority of coal miners think, because Mr. Scargill is scared to hold a ballot.

Mr. Silvester: Might it be valuable to make an assessment of the amount of coal substitution that has occurred as a result of this strike and the number of orders lost overseas, and to publish the results?

Mr. Tebbit: It would be prudent to wait until the end of the strike for a final assessment. However, we know that coal for the impressive contract for the supply of coke from Durham, negotiated by Mr. MacGregor, is currently being supplied from Europe. We also know that the ICI conversion scheme is being held in abeyance, that the flood of applications from industry for assistance with converting from oil to coal has virtually come to an end, and that many people are very gloomy about whether it would be right to rely in future on the Coal Board for the supply of coal. I believe that they are wrong and that at the end of the dispute it will be quite clear that the majority of moderate mineworkers who want to work will have won, and that in future miners will behave in the same way as the steel workers are behaving today, and will be determined to ensure that their industry survives by supplying good products reliably to their customers.

Mr. Benn: Does the Secretary of State think it helpful to describe what, even on his own figures, would be 120,000 miners, as "ruthless and violent bullies", when —[Interruption.] That is the phrase that the right hon. Gentleman used. Does he realise that the future of this country's trade and industry depends on the skill of miners, the overwhelming majority of whom will not accept the Government's policy? [Interruption.] How does he suppose that the co-operation of such people can be secured by such most violent, bitter and unprincipled abuse from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Tebbit: I have not referred to the 120,000 miners who are on strike in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Benn: Yes the right hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Tebbit: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman tries listening instead of making up fairy tales, for a change. Not even in the worst of the scenes of violent picketing have we seen 120,000 miners. We have seen a tiny minority of violent bullies who are bullying the majority of miners and who want to bully 70,000 steel workers into losing their jobs as well. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give some comradely support to Bill Sirs instead of forever licking the boots of Mr. Scargill?

Mr. Eggar: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that it was not so long ago that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was complaining about high electricity costs for industry? As 80 per cent. of electricity is usually generated from coal, is he not, by opposing the closure of uneconomic pits, arguing for higher electricity prices?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, of course he is doing so, but that is because he is the captive of one small union within the whole trade union movement. He refuses to speak up for the steel workers the transport workers and the car workers and all the others whose jobs are now being put at risk.

Mr. Lofthouse: Having conceded that the miners' strike is having an effect on the balance of payments, does the Secretary of State not think that the recent statement by the chairman of the NCB advising his senior management to continue the strike until the end of the year is completely irresponsible and the action of a mindless bully?

Mr. Tebbit: No. Mr. MacGregor did not advise his managers to continue the strike. He has advised his managers to seek to persuade the miners who are still on strike to join those who are back at work and he will continue so to do. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman, who has some influence in these matters, were to seek to arrive at a conclusion on whether the miners who are on strike want to be on strike, by pressing Mr. Scargill to risk his authority again on another ballot.

Mr. Cormack: How many colleagues of the right hon. and wrongly demagogic Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) have spoken up in support of the miners who are at work and that significant number among the 120,000 who are intimidated from going to work?

Mr. Tebbit: I think that my hon. Friend knows the answer to that question— scarcely one of them. They will not speak up for the steel workers, either. Why are they so silent on the steel workers? They always pretended to be their friends. They supported the steel workers' strike which prejudiced steel workers' jobs. Why do they not support the steel workers who are staying at work to save their jobs?

Mr. Hardy: With all his many faults, the Secretary of State tends to be rather more open in his approach to politics than many of his Cabinet colleagues. In view of his reference to Bill Sirs of the steel workers' union, may I invite him to meet Bill Sirs and his colleagues to consider the doubtful approach that has been adopted by the BSC to the supply of coke and coal to Scunthorpe, because many of us believe that there has been a determined and calculated effort to ensure that there has been as much upheaval in that supply as possible?

Mr. Tebbit: What the hon. Gentleman says is quite disgraceful. He knows full well that from top to bottom of the BSC — workers and management — everybody is united in the desire to keep the corporation going. They are united in their determination to use the coal, coke and iron ore which is getting into that steel works despite everything that the Scargill clique is doing to try to prevent it and to break British Steel.

Mr. Shore: May I take the Secretary of State from his natural habitat of insolence and abuse back to the facts? We noted that he said that the strike so far had had no

effect upon Britain's visible non-oil trade. That being so, will he now address his mind to the reasons why the manufactured trade balance is running at the rate of minus £2,400 million this year so far? What on earth does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Tebbit: There is a question on that subject later on the Order Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could contain their rambling supplementary questions, we might even manage to reach it.

School Technology

Sir John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to secure the co-operation of the Department of Education and Science in promoting British school technology.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission have co-operated with my Department in setting up the programme known as British school technology, and all will be represented on its council of management, which Sir Henry Chilver will chair.

Sir John Farr: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that in 1980 the DES launched a microelectronics programme for schools, at a cost of £20 million, which was supposed to run for sax years until 1986? As my right hon. Friend's Department has so far apparently been unaware of that DES programme, can he assure us that full co-operation is encouraged?

Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that we are only too well aware of that programme. Our micros in schools programme is part of it. The object is to try to instil some practical skills in youngsters at school, because we think that that will help them to get jobs in technology industries. We are having some success with computer studies. About 10,000 O-levels were taken in that subject in 1979 and the number had risen to about 44,000 in 1983. That shows an encouraging shift towards more practical training in schools.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman pitting the development of technology in schools, with which I agree, against the development of medical research? By reducing the money spent on various types of research, the Government aim to save money to use in the development of technology.

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that money spent on research by my Department will be greater this year than it was last year and greater next year than it is this year. We attach considerable importance to it. The aim of these programmes is to instil a more technical, practical vein of educatiion in schools. That is important for our future prosperity when those youngsters get jobs.

Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Minister is encouraged by the co-operation between his Department and the DES., how does he explain the recent Institute of Manpower Studies report, which showed that the number of graduates in computer studies will decline over the next few years from 1,589 to 1,432 and that the number of graduates in microelectronic engineering will decline from 2,129 to 1,887—a reduction of almost 10 per cent. in an area that is crucial to our future development?

Mr. Baker: I am speaking from memory, but I believe that in the next two years the total number of graduates across the whole range of computer science—including electronic engineering and computers—from universities and polytechnics will be greater than ever before.

Merseyside (Industrial Contribution)

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide figures indicating the contribution made by industry on Merseyside to the current level of British exports and gross domestic product, respectively, in actual and percentage terms.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The total gross domestic product of Merseyside in 1981 is provisionally estimated by the Central Statistical Office at £4,902 million, or 2·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, excluding the continental shelf region. Figures for exports by Merseyside industry are not available.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that those figures represent a tragedy for Merseyside in general and for the borough of Knowsley in particular, which has one third of the manufacturing base of Merseyside, yet 27 per cent. unemployment? Will the Minister accept that the Regional Studies Association report was correct when it said that the scale of the necessary reconstruction on Merseyside is so great that it is beyond the scope of traditional regional policies and that central Government direction is required?

Mr. Lamont: I certainly do not agree with the latter point. I also do not agree that, considerable though the problems of Merseyside are, the figures illustrate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Huge amounts of Government aid have been poured into Merseyside and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has not proved effective. That is one reason why it is right to look again at regional policy and to try to find a more effective way of deploying that money.

Export Competitiveness

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether British membership of the European Economic Community has affected the competitiveness of British exports to markets outside the European Economic Community.

Mr. Channon: Access to a wider Community market has allowed British manufacturers to achieve greater economies of scale. This will have improved the ability of British exporters to compete in all markets.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a fact that, were it not for the stiffer competition that British industry faces in the EEC, it would find it harder to compete in markets outside the EEC?

Mr. Channon: There can be no doubt that being a member of the Community has been a reason why, for example, there has been anxiety to achieve so much foreign investment in this country. That is because of the access that we have to a domestic market as large as 270 million people.

Mr. Gould: Something must have caused a decline in competitiveness, because the most commonly used index

shows a loss of over 27 per cent. since the first quarter of 1979. Is it not a remarkable piece of mismanagement which has allowed what were supposed to have been two great advantages to British industry, membership of the EEC and North sea oil, to cancel each other out so that every penny of the £10 billion benefit to our balance of payments from North sea oil will be needed this year to pay for the deficit in our trade in manufactured goods with the EEC, a deficit which is rising inexorably by £2 billion a year?

Mr. Channon: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures—I am sure that he knows them — show that we have had a surplus on our trading figures for the last four years. It would be impossible for our trading figures to show a surplus in every product or with every part of the world. That would be out of the question. It is undoubtedly true that British industry is now much more competitive than it was a few yers ago. We are better at performance, quality, design, reliability and at selling our goods abroad.

Works of Art (Security)

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will instruct the reviewing committee on the export of works of art to take into consideration the physical security of the proposed location of works of art leaving the United Kingdom in tendering him their advice.

Mr. Channon: The reviewing committee on the export of works of art advises my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts and this problem is for him. I am advised, however, that the committee would give careful consideration to any exceptional circumstances affecting particular works of art.

Sir David Price: As the Getty museum at Malibu is situated in one of the highest earthquake risk zones in the world, will my right hon. Friend, in the interests of international art conservation, refuse export licences to the trustees of the Getty museum until they move the museum from Malibu to somewhere that is reasonably safe?

Mr. Channon: I was concerned not long ago with my hon. Friend in a debate on these issues, and I know his views about the Getty museum. He adduces on ingenious argument for refusing an export licence—because it is in an earthquake zone. That is a new point, which I shall see is conveyed to the Minister for the Arts, who will, no doubt, decide the matter on the advice, if any, that he receives from the reviewing committee on the export of works of art.

Mr. Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be an earthquake in Britain unless the Government, to prevent the dispersal of national treasures abroad, either introduce tax incentives a la Americaine or export controls, as the Italians and French do, to debar the export of works of art and treasures that should be kept in the national custody?

Mr. Channon: I also recall debating that issue with the hon. Gentleman not long ago. Although I do not agree with the second part of his supplementary question, it is clear that, if he is threatening an earthquake in Britain, we shall all have to watch out.

Small Businesses

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present assistance given to small businesses.

Mr. Tebbit: Considerable progress has been made and we shall continue to build on it, but we have not finished with the task we have set ourselves. One of our main priorities is to encourage the development of a strong and successful small firms sector.

Mr. Pike: Is the Secretary of State concerned about the record high levels of bankruptcies during the period of Conservative rule? How many small businesses which started up under the enterprise allowance scheme have ultimately failed?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not yet have the figures to show the success or failure rate of the enterprise allowance scheme. It is encouraging to note — I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—that, taking the figures from the VAT returns, last year there was a surplus of about 47,000 start-ups over deaths of businesses. In the four years from 1980 to 1983 there was a net surplus of 118,000.

Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the managerial advice that is now being given to small businesses through local enterprise agencies is helping to reduce the number of bankruptcies? Would he care to tell the House how many local enterprise agencies are in existence?

Mr. Tebbit: I should like to give that information to the House, but I happen not to have the figure in my mind. I am given to understand that it is about 200. We had an extremely successful local enterprise week recently, in which more than 400 organisations took part. That is not surprising, because over the past few years the Government have helped small businesses in a number of ways. For example, they have helped them through rate capping, the abolition of metropolitan counties and the GLC, a stimulated flow of equity, the business expansion

scheme, the stimulation of loan capital by means of the loan guarantee scheme, the promotion of local enterprise through the agencies, a change in the tax climate to provide more incentives for enterprise, and by reducing inflation to less than 5 per cent. I am looking forward with a great deal of interest to seeing how much further we can go in many directions to assist small businesses.

Mr. Williams: It might be of greater benefit to the House if, in future, the right hon. Gentleman allows those of his colleagues who know something about small businesses to answer questions on them. Is it not manifest nonsense that the Government, who can apparently turn a blind eye to the loss of £1,000 million as a result of the coal dispute, feel it necessary to cut the mere £25 million of support that is being given under the small loans guarantee scheme for small businesses, aid to the one sector of the economy that is actually creating new jobs? Should it not be a matter of shame for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, under the new scheme that has been introduced, they expect to attract only just over half the number of applications that were attracted by the old scheme? This will mean that about 2,000 businesses a year will be denied access to the loan guarantee scheme.

Mr. Tebbit: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman of my part in looking after small businesses and of my activities in doing so. I visited the National Federation of Self-Employed headquarters at its invitation yesterday. I shall meet the Association of Independent Businesses tomorrow. I shall be speaking to the London region of the NFSE at dinner on Monday. I recently took part in a successful function, together with the BBC, in its Radio Four and Radio Times enterprise award. All these organisations and activities are vital to small businesses.
I do not accept that the coal dispute has cost £1,000 million. That is a silly and unreal figure. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman think that by causing losses to the British Steel Corporation he will make it any easier to give help to small businesses? Why does he not do his bit to try to get the dispute resolved?

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Donald Dewar: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether an investigation or review of the overseas operations of the Scottish Development Agency is presently in progress and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): rose——

Hon. Members: Where is the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly for hon. Members to start yelling at a Minister who has not even opened his mouth.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for which Minister answers a private notice question.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be a point of order for me.

Mr. Home Robertson: This is an insult.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) addressed his private notice question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Whatever else the Under-Secretary of State may be, he is not the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Junior Ministers very often answer questions on behalf of their Secretary of State.

Mr. Buchan: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall begin to regret that I granted this private notice question.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I can guess what the hon. Gentleman is about to say.

Mr. Buchan: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's unspoken question is that I am not responsible for the fact that the Secretary of State is not here to answer the question. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is here.

Mr. Buchan: That is not my point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the Scottish Office does not consist only of the Secretary of State for Scotland; it consists also, quite properly, of junior Ministers, one of whom is responsible for industry. Why is the Secretary of State not present? I believe that he is attending on the Queen today rather than on the House of Commons. As that is so, why is not his deputy with responsibility for industry here? They cannot both be paying service to Her Majesty the Queen. The Minister responsible for industry in Scotland should have been here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is still not a point of order for me.

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows, my right hon. Friend is detained by official engagements in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate why my right hon. Friend is not here.
When in 1982 additional overseas inward investment offices in the United States of America were established for Locate in Scotland and other United Kingdom bodies, it was agreed that these arrangements should be subject to review in mid-1984. That commitment is being fulfilled and Ministers are currently awaiting a report from a group of officials in which the Scottish Office is represented. A statement would not be appropriate until this report has been received and considered by Ministers, and decisions taken, but my right hon. Friend has made clear his views on the success of Locate in Scotland, most recently in his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on 25 June.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that this is the review that was referred to in the original response to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs two years ago. What are the terms of reference for this inquiry? Do they include the existence and future operations of the overseas offices of Locate in Scotland? At what level is the Scottish Office represented on this inquiry? Will the Minister make it clear beyond argument that the Secretary of State will fight tooth and nail to stave off any threat to an operation that has been one of the few successes that the Government have been able to point to in their dismal record in the Scottish economy?
I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to this next point. Would it not be deplorable if there were any attempt, in Government or Whitehall, to undermine Locate in Scotland's efforts to attract jobs and investment? Would not any such effort be misguided and misconceived? Why would it be inappropriate to comment at this stage when I understand that already this morning the Secretary of State has said in Scotland that he cannot imagine that its offices will be axed? Is that the Secretary of State's position, and, if so, will he accept that it is not enough to say that in passing? We want categorical assurances that this inquiry is not a prelude to another doleful chapter in the Government's record of economic failure in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to Locate in Scotland. That is a substantial change from the grudging acceptance of its successes that we have received from Labour Members over the past three years. As I said in my answer, the review is being carried out at official level, and the Scottish Office is represented. Obviously its results will come to Ministers for consideration, and until then, and until Ministers are aware of the nature of the review, it is not possible to comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the review is about. As I said earlier, it is in fulfilment of the original statement that the arrangements for Locate in Scotland offices in the United States of America, and the offices of other United Kingdom bodies, would be reviewed in mid-1984. The review to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that promised review.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his position clear in the statement that he made to the Scottish Grand Committee on 25 June, when the hon. Member for Garscadden was present. My right hon. Friend said:
In its short life Locate in Scotland has already established an excellent track record, and ther is no doubt in my mind that our decision to establish a one-door approach, designed with the paramount requirements of the customer in mind, has been a key factor in making Scotland competitive in the international market place for mobile investment projects.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend accept that it would be inconceivable for the four offices in the United States to be closed in view of their outstanding success in bringing high technology industry to Scotland? Will he ensure that the announcement is made as soon as possible to remove any uncertainty that has developed from newspaper reports?

Mr. Ancram: The report from officials is due shortly. Obviously it will have to be considered by Ministers, and the decisions of Ministers will be announced in due course.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the success of the operation. My right hon. Friend told the Scottish Grand Committee:
Inquiries from overseas investors are up by 40 per cent. Visits to Scotland by overseas customers checking out the location are up by 60 per cent. and the number of new companies deciding to come to Scotland is up by 70 per cent."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 25 June 1984; c. 56.]

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to consider that when Locate in Scotland was first established three or four years ago it was done against the opposition of the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry?
Does the Minister agree that there is considerable jealousy among certain English regions at the success of Locate in Scotland in bringing in about £410 million of major electronics investment work, with more to come? Is it not the case that there is now a sustained attack from those regions, exerting pressure on the Government, and from people such as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who are also attacking the system of regional grants which have benefited Scotland in the past?
Will the Minister pledge, on behalf of the Scottish Office, that in no circumstances will Locate in Scotland be dismantled, and that no offices will be shut?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, should not base all his statements on a speculative story in one newspaper. The purpose of the review is to try to increase inward investment for the United Kingdom as a whole, and Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of evidence showing why it was wise for firms to invest in Britain, and specifically to locate in Scotland? Will he acknowledge that at last the different varieties of Opposition have seen the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's establishment of the LIS bureau? But will he point out that not only has the work of the bureau itself been important; there are his other policies, such as the specific targeting of investment incentives to groupings in which Scotland has particular expertise?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Much can be learnt from the success of Locate in Scotland.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Under-Secretary of State accept that we are in a dilemma?

On 25 June we had a clear and positive statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning the success of the bureau. Now the Under-Secretary cannot refute, in the name of the Secretary of State, a speculative story that suggests that the offices are in danger. Will he kill the story right now and say that all the powers of the Scottish Office will be brought to bear to ensure that the offices continue?

Mr. Ancram: I repeat that the review of the officials is not yet complete. Obviously I cannot make a statement on the review until it has been completed and Ministers have had a chance to consider it.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland, which is directed by one of my constituents, has been prodigiously successful in co-ordinating the efforts to attract industry to Scotland? Is he aware that there would be justifiable anger in this House and in Scotland if the operations of LIS were to be curtailed?

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend and all of us at the Scottish Office are fully aware of the importance attached in all parts of the House — and, indeed, by the Scottish people as a whole — to the continuing success of our efforts to attract investment to Scotland. The purpose of the review is to ensure that, in co-ordinating the efforts that are made across the United Kingdom, the best possible result is achieved.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister press upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the forthcoming discussions, that he should tell his ministerial colleagues south of the border that it is inconsistent for the Government continually to preach about the need for Britain to enjoy international competitiveness and even to consider an option which would lead to a diminution of international influence for the Scottish economy in trying to achieve that competitiveness? Does he agree that, were the closures to take place, it would indicate that, having already done so much damage to Scotland at home, the Government now intend to do even more damage abroad?

Mr. Ancram: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman who represents the SDP-Liberal alliance, has come—also rather late in the day — to welcome Locate in Scotland after the grudging acceptances given in the past to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is speculating on the outcome of a review that has not yet been completed, and I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Gerald Malone: Is my hon. Friend aware that Locate in Scotland has been especially successful in attracting oil-related industries to the Aberdeen area and the Grampian region? Does he agree that the scheme has been a success and that it is part of the Conservative party's duty to sustain rather than stop success? Will he support LIS? Does he agree that it is ironic that Opposition Members, who on successive occasions — certainly for as long as I have been a Member—have poured cold water on the achievement of LIS, should now number themselves amongst its most excited and excitable supporters?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend that ironically the conversion of Opposition Members has been aroused by the speculative article in a Scottish newspaper,


although they could not be aroused earlier by my right hon. Friend's remarks. I reiterate that my right hon. Friend has made it clear on every possible occasion that he is pleased with the success achieved by Locate in Scotland.

Mr. Bruce Milan: As the Under-Secretary of State has said that it is acknowledged that Locate in Scotland has been a tremendous success, why should its structure be called into question? Why should its handiwork be damaged by speculation about its future? Why cannot the newspaper story be killed off by the hon. Gentleman giving a complete assurance that the activities of Locate in Scotland will not be damaged? We should be emulating in other parts of the United Kingdom the success of Locate in Scotland instead of trying to clip its wings, as some elements in Whitehall and some Tory Members would like to do.

Mr. Ancram: I, too, regret the uncertainty that has been created by the newspaper report. Obviously I cannot place a deadline on decisions that will be taken as a result of the review. The right hon. Gentleman was fully aware, because of the statement made two years ago, that the review would take place.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that I and other members of the Select Committee were especially interested in Locate in Scotland offices? We welcome the fact that the review is to take place, because it will show clearly that those offices have been successful. We as Conservatives welcome success. We shall support success, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the confidence that he has expressed in Locate in Scotland. I share that confidence. I am sure that he realises, as I have explained to the House, that such a review is designed to improve inward investment and in no way to destroy it.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: For some years before I became a Member I worked in industrial development. Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise that the people involved in the business of attracting investment and jobs to Scotland are appalled at the suggestion that such a responsibility could be carried out by officers of the consular division of the Foreign Office, which even the Glasgow Herald, in its kindest words, said
are not especially noted for their expertise in handling foreign industrialists."?
I regard the consular division as having the qualities of Midas in reverse — turning everything it touches into dross. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the success of Locate in Scotland has been to the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom economy, because it has attracted jobs that might well have gone to places other than in the United Kingdom? This service must, therefore, continue.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is speculating on the outcome of the review. I have already made it clear that I am not prepared to speculate on that until the review has been completed and considered by Ministers.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Under-Secretary of State admit that the uncertainty would not have arisen if the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland had been accountable to a directly elected Scottish assembly? Instead the Secretary of State is just a dumb puppet in a Cabinet with not nearly enough

clout to take on the likes of the Prime Minister and her leather-jacketed henchmen in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Ancram: I should be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's remarks if I had ever heard him champion LIS in the past, but all that we have ever heard from him have been stories of doom and gloom about the Scottish economy.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Under-Secretary of State referred to decisions by Ministers. Will he confirm that any decision about the future of LIS or about any matters concerning the SDA will be taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: I thought that I had made it clear in my original answer that the review covers all the agencies dealing not just with the SDA but with other parts of the United Kingdom. Like all other matters in Government, it will have to be considered by Ministers.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the justified anger of Opposition Members at the fact that it was left to the Glasgow Herald to reveal this matter? Will he also remind the Secretary of State of his earlier boasts on behalf of LIS, and will he give an assurance, as was reputed to have been given on a previous occasion, that if LIS cannot be retained he will resign?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the matter being disclosed by a newspaper, but I have made it clear that the review at this time was known about. The review has been planned for some years and is now taking place.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that lack of confidence inevitably leads to further lack of confidence? Will he make it clear today that the rumours are without foundation? If he cannot do that, will he accept that this is a resignation issue, not just for the Secretary of State for Scotland but for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and junior Ministers at the Scottish Office?

Mr. Ancram: The situation described by the hon. Gentleman has not arisen, so his question does not arise.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister accept that his reason for not giving an answer today is as spurious as his history because we all know that there was much opposition to the review in the committee, led by Iain Sproat and supported by the Minister now responsible for industry in Scotland? Moreover, in saying that we must wait for the review, is not the Minister leaving it to civil servants to make decisions for Scotland? If LIS is as successful as he, the only question that arises is not whether it should be abolished but whether it should be expanded, so will he now deny the rumours forthwith?

Mr. Ancram: I do not know what kind of reviews the hon. Gentleman has presided over, but the claim that background work carried out and reported to those who are to decide itself constitutes a decision is a strange extension of that concept. That may be how the Labour party works, but it is not the way in which anyone else works. The


review is taking place and it would be wrong for me or any other Minister to prejudge the outcome before Ministers had considered it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the business of the House. I have no doubt——

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises while I am on my feet. I shall say to those hon. Members who have not been called that we shall no doubt return to this matter in Scottish questions in a fortnight's time.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the guidance of the House, will you tell us what degree of urgency is required for a private notice question? Does any item of news about Scotland qualify if the Opposition think that the Secretary of State will not be able to be present?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is querying my judgment in these matters. I weighed the decision to grant the private notice question.

Foreign Secretary(Moscow Visit)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my visit to Moscow. On 1 and 2 July, I had five hours of talks with Mr. Gromyko and a substantial discussion with Mr. Chernenko.
I looked upon the visit as one step in our long-term policy of promoting a better understanding between East and West, with the aim of increasing security at a lower level of arms.
I wanted first to give the Soviet leadership a clear account of our views and to hear a direct explanation of theirs. I wished, too, to explore possible areas of common interest which might provide opportunities for cooperation and negotiation.
I have to tell the House that I detected no significant change in the Soviet position on the resumption of nuclear arms talks. The Russians displayed continuing scepticism about the West's commitment to an improvement in East-West relations, and to progress in the arms control negotiations in Vienna, Geneva and Stockholm.
On the basis of recent extensive consultations within NATO, at the London Summit and at the European Council, I made it plain to the Soviet leaders that Western Governments were sincere in their desire for a better understanding between East and West and for agreements on arms control.
I told them that people in the West could not understand the Soviet refusal to resume nuclear negotiations. Sooner or later those problems would have to be settled by negotiation. The longer the Soviet Union stayed away from the negotiating table, the more difficult the problems would become and the more the dangers and the costs would rise.
The recent Soviet proposal for talks on arms control in outer space, and the American response, naturally featured in the talks. The Russians described the American response as negative and hedged about with preconditions. After specific confirmation from the White House, I was able to tell the Soviet leaders that that description was mistaken. The US position was that there were no preconditions. I urged them to set the matter beyond any doubt through confidential discussions with the Americans, and to do what was necessary to ensure that the talks opened in September.
I emphasised to Mr. Gromyko the widespread and deep concern in the West that the Soviet Union were failing to honour their human rights commitments under the Helsinki and Madrid agreements. This represented a real obstacle to the creation of lasting trust between East and West.
I raised the cases of Dr. Sakharov and Mrs. Bonner, Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky, Father Gleb Yakunin and Mr. Anatoly Koryagin as important examples of the. Soviet Union's failure in that respect. I urged the Soviet Union to deal positively with these and other cases.
I also referred to a number of cases of particular interest to Britain. Those were mostly concerned with family reunification. We looked to the Soviet Union to respond much more positively to requests for exit visas.
I raised a number of other bilateral questions. I stressed in particular the importance we attached to increasing


trade. British exporters should be given a good opportunity to bid for contracts. I also raised the question of better telephone and other facilities for our business men and journalists in Moscow. I extended an invitation to Mr. Gromyko to visit Britain in 1985.
Mr. Gromyko and I were able to discuss a number of international questions, which included the Iran-Iraq war, the Middle East, Southern Africa, Poland and Afghanistan. I stressed in particular the need for Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and a peaceful settlement, as called for in five successive resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.
In my call on Mr. Chernenko I concentrated on East-West relations and arms control. I told him that we found it impossible to understand the almost automatic rejection by the Soviet Union of Western proposals. I urged him to recognise that all Western Governments were earnest in their desire to see a resumption of negotiations on nuclear arms questions, and to see the Soviet Union return to the negotiating table without delay.
The visit provided a useful opportunity to expound and carry forward our long-term policy towards the Soviet Union and on the East-West relations generally.
I did not go to Moscow with any expectation of rapid results. I was not, therefore, surprised by the disappointingly negative nature of the Soviet response. They remain apparently unwilling to make a fresh appraisal of the seriousness of the West's approach.
I hope that my visit will lead to more discussions and exchanges with the Soviet Union. It is important to sustain the search for improved relations between East and West on a realistic and long-term basis, and for real progress to be made on arms control. Neither we nor our Allies intend to take no for an answer.

Mr. George Robertson: Having heard the Foreign Secretary, we must share his disappointment at the negative outcome of his visit to Moscow. Those of us who have visited the Soviet Union recently know how relations are chilling and how dangerous that is for the whole world. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman visited Moscow as part of a process of bridge building — a process that must increase and accelerate.
However, what could have been a major opportunity to rebuild the dialogue appears to have been squandered, and the visit has become only one more opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be snubbed and dismissed. That should be no surprise to us because, rather than concentrating on establishing and exploring acknowledged areas of common concern to both the Soviety Union and the West—such as the Gulf war, the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations and the chemical warfare negotiations — the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have adopted the role of cheer leader for what even Mr. Walter Mondale described yesterday as posturing and game-playing in the United States election campaign.
We all know of and deplore the unreality of the Soviet position on refusing to return to negotiations on missile reductions. But that position will possibly exist until there is a United States President running the country rather than stomping the country. Why, therefore, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow himself to become bogged

down in the details of a wrangle over the anti-satellite talks, especially as the United States position becomes increasingly confused? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's "no preconditions" explanation on Monday was at clear variance with Washington's explanation on the same day.
The Foreign Secretary has told us that he said that after specific confirmation from the White House, the United States position was that there were no preconditions. Today's edition of the International Herald Tribune makes it quite clear that on Monday United States officials clearly said that they would feel free to raise the issue of a resumption of talks on nuclear medium-range and strategic missiles in any September talks in Vienna. Therefore, we must ask whether confirmation was sought in the White House from the same official who assured the Foreign Secretary that there was to be no invasion of Grenada.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he raised the question of the Iran-Iraq war. Did he actually develop that point, as the Soviets have already signalled concern akin to ours about the way in which the conflict could spread? Was that not a real area about which to get dialogue under way?
Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman raise the question of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations? This country is a full member of that forum, unlike other negotiations. Genuine and concerted progress could be made in that area. Is Britain dragging its feet on the banning of all tests for good reasons or because the West wants to go ahead with further nuclear tests and does not want negotiations to interrupt that programme?
We welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question of human rights in the Soviet Union, which we regularly raise from both sides in this House. On the cases that he mentioned, does he feel that there is any possibility of a softening of attitude by the Soviet Union?
Finally, on this important issue, which is of vital concern to us all, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about the next step after Moscow? The Secretary of State for Defence has already changed his position from confronting the Soviet Union to analysing it, and the evil empire rhetoric of the Prime Minister has apparently been wiped from the history books. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now do to prevent the present iciness of relationships turning into a nuclear winter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although it was put some time ago, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remark, when he welcomed my visit to Moscow. However, I seriously regret that he could not sustain the seriousness of his opening observation when he recognised, from his experience, the deeply chilling atmosphere with which we all have to contend in trying to rebuild a bridge of confidence between the East and the West.
It was precisely for that reason that I discussed a number of matters of common concern, including the Gulf war. It was possible to establish some community of interest between the Soviet Union and ourselves on that matter. We also discussed human rights, about which I know the whole House is concerned. However, I regret that there was no sign of a positive response—but that is no reason for not raising the matter.
The hon. Gentleman fell into an error of his own making in suggesting that I went there to play my part as


a cheer leader for the United States. The message that I was trying to get across in the Soviet Union was precisely the same message that President Mitterrand, Foreign Minister Genscher, Foreign Minister Andreotti and all the Western leaders have tried to get across during recent weeks and months, having considered the issues both separately and jointly in the context of the Western Alliance. Are all those people to be branded as cheer leaders for the United States?
The reality is that the West has been trying, by every means it knows, to get across to the Soviet Union the sincerity of our commitment to the search for peace. Because the exchange with the United States about arms control in space arose shortly before and during my visit to Moscow, that matter attracted a great deal of attention. The bulk of my discussions, however, were devoted to other issues. Surely, in the interests of the West and Britain, it was right for me to press the Soviet leaders on their attitude to their outer space proposals. Their attitude is either confused—in which case they should clarify it, as I suggested—or negative, in which case that should be exposed.
My aim—and I make no apology for it—is to help ensure that the September meeting in Vienna on outer space arms control, proposed by the Soviet Union, takes place. I would very much like the support of Opposition Members for that cause. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Gentleman has on this occasion, rather uncharacteristically, put forward a party political performance that fell short of the importance of the issue. Opposition Members should join us in pressing the Soviet Union on the need to return to talks, rather than seeking almost instinctively to undermine the credibility of proposals put forward by our allies.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I appreciate the sincerity and purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend's visit to Moscow, and also appreciate every word that he said and all the points that he raised, but presumably the Soviet Government were aware of the British Government's views on all the issues, with the possible exception of the new American talks on outer space. Why is it that, as far as we know, every word of real importance that he issued while he was in Moscow was censored and never reached the people whom, presumably, he went to Moscow to address? As I said, the Kremlin already knew the British Government's view. Did that censorship extend to the satellite countries so that only the Kremlin knows what it already knew before my right hon. and learned Friend made his visit?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish that I could share my hon. Friend's optimism about the extent to which the Kremlin leaders understand the foundations of the western position. The paradox is that there is such a gap between their proclaimed intentions and their understanding of the seriousness of our attempt to come to terms with them. For that reason, it was important that I should expound plainly, clearly and repeatedly to both Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Gromyko exactly what we sought and why. I emphasised to them that I was putting a case that had already been put by a whole series of other western leaders. That, in itself, makes the visit worth while.
Of course I join my hon. Friend in regretting that large sections of my speech were censored or not reported in some of the Soviet press—[Interruption.] Opposition

Members may interrupt frivolously, but surely they would wish the case that I was making on human rights and Afghanistan to be reported in the Soviet press. Sadly, that did not happen. However, I had the opportunity to make a speech before an audience of several dozen senior Soviet leaders—members of the Soviet Government. I assure the House that the speech will be read by many beyond that. That is an additional justification for my visit.
Of course we wish for freer communications, but the important point is that we should continue to try—as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) recognised, and I give him credit for it—to get the case across consistently on all sides.

Dr. David Owen: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the lessons of the chilling reception about which he spoke is that there should never again be a seven-year gap between visits of British Foreign Secretaries and Soviet Foreign Ministers? Will Mr. Gromyko come to this country next year on a return visit? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that in future, in good times and bad, there will be continuing contact to assure a more orderly relationship between the West and the Soviet bloc?
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what was said about the comprehensive test ban negotiations? These are the only major negotiations to which Britain is a party with the United States, and considerable progress has been made in them. The Foreign Secretary did not mention chemical weapon discussions, which were to be a British initiative. What discussions did he initiate about them?
In view of the substantial revision of the NATO estimates of the Warsaw Pact forces, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether he thinks that it is possible to make progress on mutual and balanced force reductions? We welcome the fact that discussions on satellites in outer space are likely to take place, and we hope that they will take place in Vienna in September. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that they are no more than a continuation of what took place between 1977 and 1979, and that in this and many other areas we are now seeking to put the clock back to the level of dialogue which existed in 1979?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance that the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the need for sustained contact between the East and the West. He will appreciate that since he held my office there have been serious actions by the Soviet Union which have done little to improve the prospects for good contacts between East and West. I refer to the invasion of Afghanistan and to the problems in Poland. Those and other actions have cast a real and serious blight over East-West relationships.
I have already mentioned all the topics to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I emphasised the need for progress on chemical weapons talks. I referred to the comprehensive test ban proposals and to the importance of their verification.
I emphasised the seriousness with which the West made proposals about the MBFR talks, but received the not uncharacteristic response to the effect that our proposals, although built on eastern proposals, were seen as killing time. That shows how far we must go to carry forward our search for arms control agreements.
Regarding contacts, I remind the House that during the past 12 months the Prime Minister and I have visited


Hungary, and the Soviet Union at the time of President Andropov's funeral. I have seen Mr. Gromyko four times since last September.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman got nowhere.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member may jibe as cheaply as he likes that we got nowhere. If he expects four visits to break the ice and the log jam, he is more foolish than I thought him to be. The Government and all other Western Governments must undertake this long-term exercise on behalf of the world. The Government are committed to that search.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition's response today, which falls far below the level of events, is deplorable? Does he further agree that his steady and persistent presentation of the West's case in Moscow can have done nothing but good and must earn him the gratitude of the country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it easy to agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. James Lamond: The Foreign Secretary's statement consisted of a list of matters that he raised with Mr. Gromyko, but he did not tell us of any replies he received, which would have been of interest to us and would have filled out our picture of his visit. Did Mr. Gromyko point out the Foreign Secretary's impudence at asking the Soviet Union to disarm while this country is arming itself to the teeth, ordering new Trident missiles and refusing even to allow those missiles to be counted in the West's armoury?
When the Foreign Secretary raised the issue of people on hunger strike in the Soviet Union, did Mr. Gromyko draw his attention to the fact that the Government allowed 10 people, including a Member of this House, to die on hunger strike in Northern Ireland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not even the Soviet Foreign Minister raised that last point with me.
Regarding arms control, I pointed out to the Soviet leaders that during the past four years the Soviet Union has continued to deploy a growing and massive number of intermediate range missile warheads in the direction of Western Europe. Throughout that period, the West was prepared to continue the search for arms control agreements. Even today, when the number of Eastern intermediate range missile warheads in Europe exceeds 1,300, the United States warheads amount to only 25.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What did Mr. Gromyko say?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will come to that.
I pointed out that, in those circumstances, it was sensible for the Soviet Union to be prepared to return to nuclear arms control talks without conditions, as the West was willing to do. However, Mr. Gromyko remained sceptical and unwilling to appraise or reappraise the case that all Western leaders have consistently made. That is the tragedy and the sadness of the gap that must be bridged. My case was the same as that put forward by many Western statesmen before me.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that too many people expect too much too soon from summit conferences and foreign ministerial visits? Despite the carping of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who is not present and is no doubt carping elsewhere, does the Foreign Secretary agree that that gentleman and his cohorts have no more to offer now than they did at the general election when they were roundly defeated on the subject? Will he accept congratulations on trying to raise the level of our bilateral relations with the Soviet Union? Will he also utterly deplore being criticised for trying to bring the United States and the Soviet Union to the conference table? Will he continue his efforts?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept both the congratulations and the advice of my hon. Friend. I agree that too often too many people expect too much too soon from summit meetings. On East-West negotiations, many Western Foreign Ministers and Heads of State have gone to Moscow to make the same case, but we are receiving too little too slowly.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: If the Foreign Secretary wishes the House to consider as sincere his effort to build bridges, should he not first dissociate himself from the Prime Minister's remarks made on four occasions in the past 12 months that the Soviet Union is an evil and vile society and that the Soviet leaders such as Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Gromyko are thoroughly untrustworthy? Is it not time that the Foreign Secretary was big enough to say. to the world that Britain wishes to get rid of the past and to start some fresh bridge building with a purpose?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the opening point in the hon. Gentleman's comments, nor do I think that it would be fruitful for either side to begin combing the rhetoric used. For example, if I were to start with the quality and tone of the speech made by Mr. Gromyko to me on Monday, I believe that that would be regarded as profoundly unhelpful to the prospect of restoring trust.
The important point is to put aside the unattractive long-range rhetoric which comes from the Soviet Union. That is what I was seeking to do during hour after hour of talks. I was saying, "Why not come to the negotiating table? There is no virtue in leaving the main negotiating table with an empty chair marked 'Soviet Union'."

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the subsequent business and the ten-minute Bill, I shall allow questions on this important statement to continue until 4.30 pm.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his frankness in Moscow, especially on the subject of human rights, was welcomed warmly by many of us who feel that it is a delusion to believe that there can be any detente or progress in East-West relations unless the Soviet leaders are made to understand the abhorrence with which civilised Governments all over the world regard their continued ill treatment of dissidents, the abuse of psychiatry, the refusal to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate, and their refusal to implement their own signatures on the Helsinki accord? Also, will my right hon. and learned Friend say what emerged from his exchange of views on the subject of Poland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Regrettably, I received no response from Mr. Gromyko on the points that I made on Poland which were about the importance of restoring a reasonable dialogue and relationship between the people of Poland and the Polish Government. I am sure that the House agrees that the way in which a country fulfils its obligations to human rights is important for its international appearance and reputation. In my public speech, as well as privately, I made it plain that the Soviet Union was not seen to be acting on that matter in accordance with its obligations. I said that deeds counted more than words, and that unless there was an improved performance, it would be difficult to build a foundation for long-lasting confidence between East and West.

Mr. John David Taylor: What was Mr. Gromyko's reply to the Foreign Secretary's invitation to him to visit the United Kingdom in 1985? Was there any discussion on the possibility of a visit by the Prime Minister to Moscow? In view of Afghanistan's request this week to the EEC that it should allow Afghan planes to fly once again into Europe, what was the Russian response to his request that there should be a withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Mr. Gromyko made it clear that he would be considering my invitation with his colleagues and would be responding in due course. I believe that that is a fairly customary response to such an invitation.
I did not talk about an intended visit, either way, by Mr. Chernenko or by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. At present there are no plans for that. Most surprisingly, there was no reply from Mr. Gromyko about Afghanistan; he moved to a new subject. The subject of airline rights was not raised.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Apart from the regrettable censorship of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement in Moscow, did he ask the leadership of this super-power why it was frightened to allow Her Majesty's ambassador to make his moderate Queen's birthday broadcast? Will he consider asking our broadcasting media to offer the equivalent time to the Soviet ambassador to put his views to the British people if the Soviet leaders allow the British voice to be heard in the Soviet Union?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall consider the last point. I did specifically raise the subject of the refusal to broadcast Her Majesty's ambassador's speech. Other ambassadors have been faced with similar experiences. I drew attention to the need to improve freedom of communication both ways and, above all, from the West to the Soviet Union and its people.

Mr. David Winnick: It is right that human rights issues should be raised with the Soviet leadership, although it is always better that it should be done by those with clean hands. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman be taken seriously in Moscow when it is plain that much of this country's defence and foreign policies are but an extension of United States foreign policy? It is clear that in many ways the Foreign Secretary is acting as a kind of errand boy for the United States President.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member has repeated, once again, the least substantial point of those that have been made about my visit. I have already said that my talks

covered the whole range of East-West issues. On the central point, I was carrying the same message as that carried by the leaders of all major Western European countries in recent months — that they, like we, are sincere in the search for a better relationship, and that the United States leadership, and President Reagan in particular, is equally sincere. He has made it plain on many occasions that he would like nothing better than to achieve a breakthrough towards more effective arms control.
The approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman underlines once again the extent to which too many Opposition Members pay lip service to our alliance while in their hearts lies the policy of neutralism and nonalignment which is founded on nothing but antagonism to our principal north Atlantic ally.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Although it was a useful visit in that it succeeded in highlighting the completely negative approach of the Soviet regime, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that few people in this country will be prepared to roll out any carpet for Mr. Gromyko unless there is some evidence that he will come here with a more open mind on the subject of arms control, multilateral disarmament and the recognition of human rights?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I am not sure that I want to offer any precise forecast about the number of carpets that would be rolled out for such a visit.
It is important that meetings between the leaders of East and West should take place in the West as well as in the East. It is important that an increasing number of Soviet and Eastern leaders should have an insight not just into the conditions in which we live in the West but into the way in which people in the West feel about these matters. That is the basis upon which one must judge this approach.

Mr. Russell Johnston: On the subject of the effect of rhetoric, does the Foreign Secretary agree that his visit to Moscow has at least convinced him that aggressive rhetoric is counterproductive in the admittedly difficult search for improved relations between East and West?
At the beginning of his statement, the Foreign Secretary said that he went to Moscow to explore possible areas of common interest which might provide opportunities for co-operation and negotiation, but we were not told subsequently what matters gave him any encouragement. Were there any?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In earlier answers I identified some of the arms control negotiations where it might be possible to find scope for progress—for example, the Stockholm talks, the conference on disarmament in Europe, the talks on chemical weapons and, although it was not encouraging, the Vienna talks on MBFR and a common position on the approach to the Iran-Iraq war. There were other matters upon which views were more widely divergent.
I believe that those who speak for and advise the West have for a long time shown an awareness of the need, as the hon. Gentleman put it, to avoid aggressive rhetoric. There is, of course, no mischief in making it plain, as is done on both sides of the divide, that we have a way of life in which we believe, and that there is a way of life in


which others believe which is not acceptable to us. I believe that there is a limit to the sensitivity that Soviet leaders can feel about this when they consider the kind of language that they use so frequently. It is important for them to understand that hours of speeches have come from Western leaders saying, "We want nothing better than to see you come back to the bargaining table without conditions." Without that there is no chance of convincing each other, which is what we want to do.

Mr. Dennis Walters: When my right hon. and learned Friend was discussing the middle east, did he raise the subject of the possibility of holding a conference early next year in which the parties directly involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute would participate with the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain and France, aimed at trying to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We discussed the possibility of a conference on the middle east. We did not go into the participation at such a conference. The proposal was raised by Mr. Gromyko. I said that we did not think that the time was yet ripe for such a conference, although it might have a part to play. I was principally concerned to discover how far the Soviet Union would be willing, in our joint search, to produce a more united approach than the Arabs and to discover how far the Soviet Union would be able to bring her influence to bear on Syria to produce greater coherence on the Arab side.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that any progress between the Soviet Union and the West is bound to be piecemeal and done step by step? There will be no landslides. How is it that when the Soviet Union has offered to discuss missiles in outer space, in spite of saying that the West will not make any preconditions, the Foreign

Secretary and President Reagan set down a monumental precondition? They have said that all missiles must be discussed when the Soviet offer relates to missiles in outer space. Why do we pretend that we are offering no conditions when we have imposed a monumental one?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was happy to think that the hon. Gentleman was offering words of wisdom in the first part of his question, but I am not happy to agree with what he said in the second part. The United States response was unconditional. The United States said that it was prepared to respond to the Soviet invitation to discuss arms in outer space. The United States also sought the opportunity to discuss other nuclear weapons. It does not seem a monumental obstacle to the chance of progress to suggest that the entire agenda, as opposed to only part of it, should be on the table.

Mr. George Robertson: The Foreign Secretary accused me of bringing party politics to the House. I shall take that as a compliment.
With regard to the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations, the Foreign Secretary said that he raised the subject in Moscow but he did not mention the subject in the statement. As this is a crucial matter in which Britain has a role to play, can he say whether he mentioned it and what the British stance is?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not mentioned every item of all of the many arms control debates that are taking place and which came up in our discussions. I have already explained that solutions to the complex problems of verification are important before we can have the prospect of resuming negotiations effectively. I was not complaining that the hon. Gentleman indulged in party politics in the House. On these matters, I sense a wide common feeling in the House that we should try to promote dialogue between East and West. Uncharacteristically, he demeaned his approach to that important issue.

Locate in Scotland

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, I think that the House will feel that, in view of our exchanges on the private notice question on which he was called and, since, as the Minister said, no decision has been taken, it would not be appropriate to raise the issue under the Standing Order No. 10 procedure. Indeed, it would be an abuse of that procedure.

Mr. Wilson: Normally, I would accept your advice, Mr. Speaker, but because of the statements made by the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland, I wish to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 10. The fact that there has been a question and answer session on the subject allows me to be brief. Your granting the private notice question suggests that the matter is urgent, specific and important.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Minister said that the Government's object in the review was to bring investment to the United Kingdom as a whole and that the United Kingdom includes Scotland. With regard to the future of Locate in Scotland, we are dealing with an organisation the prime duty of which is to bring jobs to Scotland. There will be uncertainty especially if, as the Minister said, the review will be conducted during the recess.
This is not an easy or light matter that can be shrugged off. We have not heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland or from the Minister who is responsible for industry in Scotland. Because of that and because of what the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland said, I ask that, notwithstanding the fact that we discussed the matter earlier, you consider an application under Standing Order No. 10. The issue is crucial, bearing in mind the large number of unemployed people in our country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of Locate in Scotland in the light of the statement made by the Minister with responsibility for local government.
I have listened to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret to say that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Statements

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter as a Scot and am not referring adversely to the fact that we had a prolonged period on a Scottish question—35 minutes, I believe. We then had an infinitely shorter time — about 20 minutes—on a much more major issue. I am sorry to have to say this so bluntly, but I question your judgment in regard to the times alloted to the two issues.

Mr. Speaker: I was about to say, "I can shoot the hon. Member down", but perhaps I shall refine that and say that we started the private notice question at 3.33 pm. There were points of order before we got on to it. We then went on to the Foreign Secretary's statement at 3.53 pm, so we have had a good 40 minutes on the statement. In view of the business before the House, I do not think that that is at all unreasonable.

Prevention of Intimidatory Picketing

Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place upon police authorities the duty to reclaim as a civil liability from the union involved any additional costs incurred in consequence of police having to attend any site when the number of pickets is in excess of six; and further to amend the law so that the loss of employment resulting from refusing to take part in a strike shall be considered to be unfair dismissal.
I am sure that the violence we have seen recently on television has made us all deeply anxious about what is happening in our country. Law is the condition of civilised life and respect for it enables men and women to enjoy their civil rights in freedom. If there is a right to strike, there is also a right to go to work. Picketing is lawful only when it seeks peacefully to persuade. To do that one needs no more than six pickets—not 60 or 600 and certainly not the 6,000 that we have seen at places such as Orgreave. What we have seen in the past few weeks is not picketing, but an attempt by force to prevent others from doing what they have a right to do. It is intimidation and an attempt to substitute the rule of law with the rule of the mob.
It is time for us to give quiet, serious and dispassionate consideration to how such intimidatory picketing can be curtailed. The code of conduct that accompanied the industrial relations legislation of 1980 and 1982, which was agreed with the Trades Union Congress, states that there need be no more than six pickets at any site. That makes sense. The legitimate purpose of picketing is to advise fellow workers that an industrial dispute is in progress. One does not need more than six people to make it clear that a strike is on and that a picket line exists. When one starts to get way in excess of six pickets and stones, bottles, smoke bombs and other missiles are thrown at people who want to go to work, the only reasonable inference is that people are there not peacefully to persuade, but to bully, threaten and intimidate and to try to prevent people from going to work with implied, and often actual, threats of physical violence. It is mob rule on the rampage.
Ironically, the long-term victims of such mob rule will be trade union constitutionalists as they attempt to contain hotheads with union rule books made worthless by so-called direct action. It has been said that the present situation could be resolved if the National Coal Board availed itself of the legislation to control secondary picketing. But that is to misunderstand the law. One cannot force a private body to seek private relief in the courts for the public good. If one wants to protect the public good, one has to give a public body the right to seek the necessary relief. It must be for Parliament to protect the public good. Until now, one of the results of restraint in the use of industrial relations legislation has been that it has imposed on the criminal law the task of protecting the rights of those who want to work, with more than 1,200 people, for example, being charged with the offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, and with local police authorities incurring well over £50 million of additional costs as a direct result of the need to police the mass picket lines to enable people to get to work.
I believe that there is a way in which the activities of those trade unions that seek to intimidate and bully can be curtailed, and that is why I seek the leave of the House to

introduce a Bill that will help to prevent intimidatory picketing. Its provisions are simple. It will give local police authorities the right to reclaim as a civil debt from a union the direct cost attributable where it has been necessary for police officers to attend a site at which the number of pickets has been in excess of six, which is the number set down in the present code of conduct on picketing.
In practice, the presence of more than six pickets at any entrance to a workplace would, on the face of it, be considered intimidatory, and if a senior police officer believed that because of the presence of more than six pickets intimidation was likely to take place and that the presence of two or more police officers was required to protect those wishing to go to work, the direct costs of such extra policing could be claimed as a civil debt from the union with whose policy the pickets were supposedly trying to acquaint those going to work. It would be a defence that the union concerned had taken all reasonable steps to limit the number of pickets to six.
Such an approach would have a number of advantages. It would oblige any union involved in intimidation and violence directly to meet the costs of the police in protecting other citizens because of that union's violence. It would hit the pockets of unions that allowed or encouraged their members to intimidate or use violence. The police authorities would never be a party to the industrial dispute and, thus, their intervention could not affect relations between the union and the employers. Unlike an injunction—which is a mandatory order of the court—there would be no question of anyone being able to seek to become a martyr and go to prison because, if the union did not pay the necessary compensation, the court would simply have the power to take union assets in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
I believe that giving police authorities the opportunity directly to recoup from the unions involved the direct costs of having to deal with intimidatory picketing will go a long way towards bringing the heavy mob under control and stopping the mob action that we have recently seen.
I thus hope that I have the support of the whole House in introducing this Bill. I also hope that the Government may consider its provisions worthy of inclusion in future public order legislation, because Parliament must take every step necessary to protect the right and freedom of the individual to go to work, free from violence and free from intimidation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Michael Hirst, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Gerald Malone, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Andy Stewart and Mr. Richard Tracey.

PREVENTION OF INTIMIDATORY PICKETING

Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to place upon police authorities the duty to reclaim as a civil liability from the union involved any additional costs incurred in consequence of police having to attend any site when the number of pickets is in excess of six; and further to amend the law so that the loss of enployment resulting from refusing to take part in a strike shall be considered to be unfair dismissal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[2nd ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Estimates 1984–85

Class IX, Vote 8

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £342,548,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Home Office on prisons (including central administrative staff) and associated stores in England and Wales, and the Parole Board.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That Class IX, Vote 8, be reduced by £1,000 in respect of Subhead A6(1) (Academic, physical and religious education of prisoners including the cost of seconded teachers; library services; vocational and construction industry training; recreational expenses).
It is a fine thing that we are to have a debate on this important subject, and I pray tribute to the Liaison Committee, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who first initiated such processes with the Leader of the House, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who has seen these important matters through. Consequently, we can debate Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who has kindly allowed me effectively to introduce the debate, thereby waiving his own privilege as the current Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. He invited me to do so because I initiated discussions on this whole subject in the last Select Committee.
I also pay tribute to Mr. Christopher Price, a former Member of Parliament, who may be in the precincts of the Palace, for the marvellous lead that he gave the Committee during the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Select Committee was moved to conduct a parliamentary investigation into education in prisons. It was the first time that the House had undertaken such an investigation. Incidentally, we had the excellent support of Sidney Heaven OBE, whose background is recognised internationally. Indeed, I also pay him a warm tribute for all that he has done and continues to do in advising our Committee.
We acted on noble precedents. In 1729, General Oglethorpe induced Parliament to inquire into the horrors of the Fleet and Marshalsea prisons, and founded that line of idealists and practical reformers that continued in John Howard, Elizabeth Fry and many others, who saw prisons as a means by which offenders might be led back into the community of good and useful people from whom they had been temporarily expelled by their own actions.
We were also conscious that we were looking into an area where public money is spent on a large scale. In 1980–81, the cost of keeping a prisoner in a dispersal prison was £19,262 a year, rising by about £3,000 a year. In the same year, the average cost of keeping a prisoner in a local prison was £8,770 a year, rising by about £1,000 a year. If the rises have continued at the same rate, the

sums for the current year must be £28,000 per prisoner in a dispersal prison and about £12,000 per prisoner in a local prison. Those are substantial sums of taxpayers' money.
The Committee fully acknowledged that there were very positive aspects to the present situation, on which we must congratulate the Government and all those involved in the prison department. Wicked and dangerous men and women committed to prison are kept in security where they can no longer menace society. There is now in progress a better building programme than there has been for a century, and that is excellent. There is also provision to improve the establishment of prison officers still further. The independent prison inspectorate, established in 1980 by the then Home Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, in an act of great political courage, publishes regularly full and honest accounts of the state of our prisons. Last, and most apposite, the prison education service has developed into an organisation with professional standards and great potential. That is due in no small measure to the tireless efforts and commitment of Alan Baxendale, its first chief education officer, to whom I pay a warm tribute for all that he has done and continues to do and for the manner of his doing it.
Yet the Select Committee is profoundly disturbed by what the inquiry revealed. Prisons, with education playing its appropriate part, should be influencing the prisoner, while he is serving his sentence, to mend his ways and to become a contributing member of society. I have been a visitor of prisons for many years. I have been all over and have thoroughly looked at prisons of every kind, not only at their education service, although that is what I want to concentrate on today. The evidence proves that prisons are having the opposite effect. In particular, the efforts of the prison education service to help the task of the prison service are being seriously frustrated.
All sources of information give the same picture of prisons. I quote, not from some sensational journal, but from the sober reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. He said:
In local prisons, many prisoners are locked up for 22 hurs each day with nothing to do for weeks on end; in a Training Prison, to give one example, 200 men out of 745 were locked up all day with nothing to do; other prisoners, recorded as at work, have in reality very little to do.
I ask for reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the situation is no longer deteriorating. It is imperative that he be able to give the House today reassurance that that serious deterioration has been arrested.
In 1981 the chief inspector spoke of the
rapidly diminishing"—
I repeat, diminishing—
possibility of access to recreational, educational and other facilities.
In 1982 the chief inspector told us:
the problem is as bad, if not worse, than in 1981.
The Select Committee was not indifferent to humanitarian objections to the cruel stupidity of such a regime. We had to face, however, and had no wish to avoid, the consideration that prisoners are under-sentenced for crimes, many for hurting and most for robbing their fellows. Some clearly felt that it was just that they should be imprisoned in punitive conditions.
We considered that conflict of opinion seriously and carefully. We had before us evidence from bodies that we could not possibly ignore — prison governors, prison officers, the Association of County Councils, the Society


of Education Officers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, and many more.
We scrutinised the published reports and statistics of the prison department, Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Prisons, and relevant publications of the Home Office. Our detailed examination of that vast mass of evidence, all written with great care, for which we were grateful, and all emanating from sources which commanded our respect, revealed that none of those authoritative bodies in any place in their evidence gave the smallest sign that the present unpleasant regime of confinement in idleness deters men and women from committing new crimes after their release, and so returning to prison.

Mr. Tom Cox: I have listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. What he has just said to the House was ably backed up by the ex-governor of Wormwood Scrubs prison, who resigned from the prison service after an extremely distinguished service because he was so fed up with the lack of help from the Home Office. He refused to be in charge of what he called a human dustbin.

Mr. Greenway: What the hon. Gentleman said is true. The former governor of Wormwood Scrubs appeared before the Select Committee and said such things. We took a serious view of what he said. On the other side of the coin, some were more optimistic. None the less, I am taking a serious view and I note the point that has been made.
On the contrary, the regime of confinement in idleness does much to ensure that a prisoner cannot go straight after release. That is the worry to the House and to society. The convicted criminal who wants to go straight needs much more than good intentions. He has to be capable of strenuous effort and great perseverance in the face of disappointment, as has every member of society. His friends, and probably his family, may well be criminals. He has to reject them and find new friends. He has to find a new place to live and a new way of earning a living. That needs great strength and stamina. Every bit of evidence that we received on the matters and every official report that we read, emphasised that confinement and idleness rob all but the very strongest of that strength and perseverance, indeed, of the very will to exert themselves in any way except, alas, one.
It also emerged forcefully in the evidence that prisoners kept locked up and idle for long periods may be pushed towards violence and riot. Official reports tell us not only that prisoners locked up and idle, as many now are, are likely to become violent and recidivist, but confirm that they are becoming so. The official reports of the prison department and of the prison inspectorate for 1982 tell us that the prison population is becoming more recidivist and that violence in prisons is "commonplace" and "horrifying" — their words, not mine. They say that there is "very great concern" over the increase in arson in cells.
I suppose that there is a certain bureaucratic neatness about a series of reports that begins by forecasting disaster and goes on to chronicle the disaster as it comes to pass. But one could wish for a happier sequence of records.
The Select Committee observed education in prisons primarily in relation to the heavy and serious problems of violence in prisons and recidivism arising from a lack of occupation. Idle hands make mischief. That is not a new expression and one can put it as simply as that. Although prison industry did not lie within our purview we looked at it because the pattern, nature and even quantity of education provision will be different if prisoners have a chance to do a day's work in industry. We were forced to the conclusion that prison industry was not likely to alleviate the problems of idleness to any lasting extent. Out of a total of 305 workshops 210 were working at less than half capacity in 1981 and producing a trading deficit of £9,700,000. Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons expressed no hope of improvement.
Does prison education really offer purposeful occupation to prisoners? We had to consider representations from some quarters that it does not, that it is, sometimes at any rate, a soft option, a skive or a trick to get out of a cell and gossip over a book. We were not naive and I do not want to be naive in what I say to the House. We know that for some people education can be a skive. That is the way of the world and all people are human. We saw in the evidence no reason to doubt the genuineness of the efforts that students put into study. They work hard and, as one who was a schoolmaster for 23 years and held senior positions, I can confirm the genuineness of the effort that we saw.
Everything that we learned lead us to suppose that, in the conditions of conviction and imprisonment, men and women who choose to study—we are talking about a voluntary activity — are motivated to work very hard indeed. At one end of the scale, an illiterate prisoner will probably progress between two and five years in reading age in 12 weeks of daytime tuition. That is pitifully slow progress. At the other end of the scale, the success rate of prisoners taking public and vocational examinations is about 90 per cent. As a member of the council of the Open University, I know that a number of prisoners are taking OU courses with considerable success. They and their mentors should be congratulated.
We recommended that prisoners undertaking a course of education should be paid at the same rate as prisoners working in industry—about £2 to £2·50 a week. Some see that as a radical recommendation, but I ask the House to see it in the context of the broad picture that I am presenting.
Two facts show that prisoners realise how much value there is in prison education. First, the report on the riots in Wormwood Scrubs in 1979 says that one of the main causes of those riots was the closure of the education block. Secondly, during the riots at Hull prison, prisoners protected the education block from damage, to show the value that they attached to it. Those were tremendous demonstrations of prisoners' feelings. It would be instructive to compare the cost of a major prison riot with the annual cost of education in prisons.
The first task of the prison education service is to bring prisoners who will take advantage of education to the end of their sentence with the spirit to grasp, on release, the opportunity to rejoin the honest and contributing part of society. That must be the aim of the service and of society.
Of course, that is only a start. The after-care agencies, such as NACRO, have a major part to play. That is why our first and second recommendations dealt with


collaboration between the prison education service and the after-care organisations, particularly in their education work.
The Committee saw and was immensely encouraged by a living proof of the success of the partnership of education and after-care. One of our witnesses, Pat Doyle, had followed the familiar path from school truancy to petty crime and on to ever longer prison sentences. After the shock of her last conviction and sentence, she said:
Enough is enough. I cannot go on like this.
She turned, as others turn, to education to help her to get on to a new course of life. Her prison teachers helped and, towards the end of her sentence, teachers from the North London college came into the prison to start working with her, so that she would not be among strangers, if she continued to study after her release. When the Committee saw her, she was well on her way to an independent and useful life. We were impressed by Miss Doyle and her approach to life after her education in prison.
The Committee's report goes far beyond assertions about the vital importance of education in prisons. It recommends that prisoners should be given a right of access to education. We found that the present system of "administrative discretion" —a Home Office expression — is unsatisfactory. We looked at the results of administrative discretion and we do not like them. Administrative discretion sets no minimum standards and imposes no obligation, either on the state or on its employees, to reach minimum standards.
The first consequence of that is waste; there is a worrying amount of waste in educational resources in prisons. On our visits, we saw much productive work in prison classrooms, but we also saw much under-use of resources—desks not being used, space not being taken up for education and so on.
In one prison, we saw a fine education centre and talked to many potential students with clear educational aims, but we were shocked to see no useful work done throughout a whole day, because of muddle in the movement of prisoners. That will not do.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is quite forthright about waste. In written evidence, he spoke of
a regrettable waste of educational manpower and resources".
In oral evidence, he spoke of
a significant amount of wastage in a number of establishments".
He gave specific examples in reports on individual prisoners.
I give two clear examples. The new education centre at Leeds prison stood idle for a year before it was used for classes, and the new purpose-built education centre in Brixton prison was not used for education for a much longer period. Regrettably, if there is "administrative discretion", some will use their discretion to do very little. I should justify that remark. Education in prisons is provided by local education authorities and the nature of their participation typifies the feeble—dare I say "wet"? —nature of "administrative discretion". They are invited by the Secretary of State to "make arrangements" for education in prisons. They need not do so if they do not wish to. The result is that some local education authorities provide
the essential administrative service but little else".
Those are not my words and they are not even the words of the Select Committee. They are the words of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. The teachers' organisation NATFHE is blunter. It says that in most cases

the local education authority is a "shadow", a mere employment agency. In such circumstances, those who want to use resources to the full, to provide a good service and to make progress can be, and sometimes are, frustrated.
The Committee recommends that the system of administrative discretion should be ended by a prisons regime Act which not only specifies minimum standards, but lays down an aim for the penal system that can be paraphrased as not only secure detention, but the encouragement of all possible progress towards rehabilitation.
It is clear from our evidence that there is no unanimity of aim in the prison service. It emerges in the suspicion with which different branches of the service seem to regard each other. The governors are on guard against the "empire building" of the education service. The prison officers think that educational facilities encourage prisoners not to conform to the prison regime. Education officers clearly feel threatened by their multiplicity of bosses and want it to be laid down in writing to whom they are responsible. They do not know where they stand.
Those divisions, resulting from uncertainty of aim, are exacerbated in the prison education service by a structural organisation straight out of "Alice in Wonderland".
Basic and academic teaching is in the hands of teachers employed by the local education authority who are professionally and operationally responsible to the education officer. He, however, is professionally responsible to the local education authority, but operationally responsible to the governor.
Teachers employed to teach vocational subjects are employed not by the local education authority, but directly by the Civil Service. They are operationally responsible to the education officer, who is not employed by the Civil Service, but professionally responsible directly to the Home Office education branch—unless, that is, they teach a subject connected with the building industry, in which case they are responsible to the directorate of works.
With such a structure, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that our evidence showed a marked lack of unity in the education services in prisons, with no real cohesion. As we know, cohesion in education is essential if there is to be a proper structure and if progress is to be achieved. The civilian instructional officers wrote to the Committee:
We are not inclined to be answerable to an Educational Officer who is not a Civil Servant".
Some of them were, but they said that they were "not inclined to be".
Education in prisons operates effectively only if all branches of the service support and collaborate in it. That depends on the services of the prison officers at a basic level, such as escorting prisoners to classes. We were saddened to learn, for instance, that evening classes—vital where men have daytime work in industry—are often severely curtailed because the existing system of staff attendance provides few prison officers to support classes after 5 o'clock in the evening.
From the evidence before us we had to conclude, as the Chief Inspector of Prisons concluded, that the allocation and deployment of uniformed officers was poorly organised. What concerned us most, however, was that questions about their numbers and deployment as posed in


the May report in 1979, and raised repeatedly since then, and last raised in the chief inspector's 1982 report, have still not been answered.
The figures show that between 1947 and 1981, the number of prisoners increased by 174 per cent. and that the number of prison officers increased from 2,400 to 17,000, an increase of 600 per cent. Yet they still work, on average, 15 hours a week overtime. It is all very puzzling. It is also puzzling to reflect that, within that new situation, prison officers often do not have time to accompany prisoners to education classes.
Our concern and recommendations did not stop at a query on prison officer working practices. In our view, the aim of the whole prison regime should be to encourage the rehabilitation of the prisoner, which in the broadest sense is a task of re-education. We saw on our visits encouraging examples of prison officers and education officers working together in active concern for the progress of the prisoners in their charge. It was an exciting experience to encounter such collaboration and unity, and we made recommendations to encourage that still further.
Most of all, however, we believe that we cannot get the branches of the prison service to work together unless they are directed towards one objective, and we believe that that objective should be decided by this House and embodied in primary legislation, in a prison regimes Act. In our view, the disunity arises from a neglect of the first basic principle of management, that one cannot manage without an objective. If one has a means without an end, one has trouble.
Many bodies who gave evidence to us — Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, for instance—traced waste and conflict back to the same cause, to that lack of a defined objective. I am sorry to be hammering the point home, but it is central to the whole issue. Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, in his 1982 report, arrived at the same diagnosis. Many prison staff to whom he had spoken were afflicted with "uncertainty and doubts" and were
calling for a fresh look at custodial objectives".
Yet against this massive demand, the Government do not even consider, in their reply to the Select Committee's report, the nine paragraphs of argument advanced in favour of the recommendation that the aims of the prison system should be decided and promulgated in a law discussed and enacted by this House, a prison regimes Act.
All in all, we found a picture of large numbers of people, some with good ideas, some with not such good ideas, all working in different directions in a mire of confusion and obfuscation. The result is not only unsatisfactory but a wholly unacceptable waste of resources. Our vision focuses on the need for a small piece of legislation, a prison regimes Act. That, in turn, focuses our minds on the needs and rights of the prisoner heading for a new, rehabilitated life, becoming a new citizen risen out of the waste and criminality of his former life.
I urge the House, by enacting such a measure, to give the prisoner the right to be actively employed for a full day, to have the right of access to education, to be treated equally whether working in the workshop or the classroom, to be properly assessed on his educational needs and to be able to fulfil his serious educational ambitions.
We want to provide around the prisoner a prison service whose actions and objectives are co-ordinated and unified

towards his betterment; a concerted force of prison officers willing and able to escort him to the workshop or the education block with equal zeal; and a positive, rehabilitative regime, carefully tempered by realism. Ultimately, every prisoner should be given the fullest encouragement to mend his ways.
These aims are not naive or idealistic. The overriding purpose must be the secure custody of often dangerous criminals. But nobody can justify spending enormous amounts of public money on a penal system which merely embitters and frustrates both prisoners and custodians and whose main educative effect is to teach inmates new tricks of the criminal trade.
The House must look afresh at the whole situation. I urge all hon. Members to look with new eyes at a problem that is of central importance to society and to the caring attitude of the nation.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I am sure that when, many years ago, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and I first met, we did not think that he would be moving an amendment on a subject such as this, or that, though on opposite sides politically, we would be at one on this issue. The depth of the problem and the unity of thought that has gone into the methods of solving it are proved by the fact that the motion stands in the name of two Conservative Members — the hon. Member for Ealing, North and the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee)—and myself.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the previous Chairman of the Select Committee, the former hon. Member for Lewisham, West, Christopher Price, whose interest in this subject is borne out by the fact that he has come here today to listen to the debate. I wish sincerely that he was in a position to take part in it, because not only is his depth of knowledge great, but he has been a friend of mine from Sheffield for upwards of 30 years.
The sparsity of attendance for the debate is regrettable, because we are discussing a vital subject. I accept that some of us would not have known the extent of the problem had we not looked into it. It is a pity that there are not more journalists in the Press Gallery to tell the general public about this real problem which society faces.
It has recently been decided to release about 2,000 prisoners on parole. We all admit—indeed, the whole of Europe admits — that British prisons are grossly overcrowded. That overcrowding has intensified the problem with which we in the Select Committee have been trying to deal. The unanimity among the members of the Committee is a tribute to their realisation of the intensiy of the problem, remembering that none of us knew anything about it until we began visiting prisons.
Most of us have never visited a prison but I had been in one or two to visit a constituent and some time ago I led a delegation into the Maze—Long Kesh—for political reasons. The Maze is a modern prison but some of our prisons are the most appalling places. It is dreadful that people should be put in them. I know it has to be, but many of them are Dickensian in the extreme. Some of the things that go on in them make anyone heave a great sigh of relief when he comes out.
I had some initial knowledge of prisons but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North for being the first to raise the issue. He had spoken to his friend,


Sidney Heaven, who became our excellent adviser. Mr. Heaven showed a profound knowledge of the problem that we were considering, and intense humanity. We were able to unify ourselves, notwithstanding the political divide, because the problem demanded that we should do so. There were some differences between us but on the major issues we were at one.
Like the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I was a teacher for many years. However, I had never given a thought to prisoners who wanted to be educated. I taught children a great deal about a woman I deeply admired, Elizabeth Fry. I remember the story I used to tell the children about her first visit to a prison. The warders, the turnkeys of those days, begged her not to go into the women's section of the prison. They told her that she would be torn limb from limb. It was so horrifying that most of the turnkeys never ventured into the women's section. Elizabeth Fry bravely went in, stood among the women and gradually won them over. She was first subjected to villification, foul words and abuse. However, she went among them as a teacher and a reformer. When we visited prisons I thought of the noble people of the past who learnt such a great deal and saw the issues much more deeply than many of us do today.
We worked hard to produce a careful and detailed report. We knew that it was essential to do so. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North has said, it was the first time that such a report had been prepared. If the Select Committee is to be remembered for anything, I believe that it will be for this report. In fact, it was one of the minor reports that the Committee prepared, having produced more reports than any previous Select Committee. That is a tribute to our Chairman, among others.
Unfortunately, the Government decided to attack our report. There was a problem because the report was made by the previous Select Committee and became available a year last April. In the meantime there was a general election. There was a different Committee when the Government produced their reply early this year. Only two members of the previous Committee are members of the present Committee. It is fortunate that they are two who took a real interest in the report. The new members of the Committee had to consider the report of the previous Committee and the Government's reply. It saw fit to hold a further group of meetings before producing a second report, having inquired more deeply into the subject. That is a measure of the seriousness with which it approached the problem.
The Committee's decision to proceed in that way was widely welcomed throughout the prison service and by the teachers in the service, especially by the main union that represents the prison education staff as opposed to the prison staff itself, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. It wrote to the Committee to express its complete support for the report and for every principal recommendation within it.
It was about eight months before the Government published their reply to the Committee's report. It was vague, dismissive and, in the Committee's opinion, thinly argued. That is why we had to go further and respond to the reply. Our most vivid impression, following visits to prisons, from questioning those concerned with education, and from considering written evidence, was the degree of confusion in prisons in general. It is impossible to study

prison education and not to learn a great deal about prisons, the prison service and what goes on in prisons generally.
We met warders who were deeply interested and some who were not. I remember going round Wakefield prison with the chief warder. He was obviously a most humane man and he was forthright in his criticism of what went on. At the same time, he was aware of the realities and recognised that good things were happening. We learnt quite a lot from our visit to Wakefield.
We found that no one agreed entirely on why or how prisoners should be educated. Each individual had his opinion and there was nothing central to the approach to education in prisons. The purpose of the prison regime itself was unclear. For example, should a prison regime be punitive or rehabilitative? In the minds of most people it has to be punitive to a degree, but I believe that that feature should take second place to the prison's role in rehabilitation. Unfortunately, whether the intention is to punish or not, the rehabilitative aspect is slender. In my opinion prisons will be universities for the training of criminals until we adopt a far more rehabilitative approach to those we imprison. There was no real direction given from the prison department. The central pillar of the Committee's report was the recommendation that a prison regime Act should be placed on the statute book setting out a right of access to education and a right for prisoners to be actively employed.
It is appalling that so many prisoners spend 22 or 23 hours a day in their cells. We visited Wormwood Scrubs and saw prisoners on remand placed three or four in a cell. Many of them had been there for many months. Many had been there for six months and some had been there for longer than that. They were waiting to be tried for offences of which they said they were innocent. I do not know whether they were innocent but they had a right to he tried long before many of them did reach the courts. They needed education just as much as other prisoners. In 1982 the annual day for the collection of statistics in prisons was 30 June. It was found that 10,841 of a prison population of nearly 44,000 at that time were idle for the entire day. That meant that 25 per cent. were unemployed.
What about the other 75 per cent.? Does anyone think that they were employed? Many of them were in their cells all day long and all night long, with all the indignities of slopping out in the morning and many other things that one can hardly talk about but which happen in prisons. The feeling of humanity within the Committee steadily emerged when we witnessed many of the things that take place in our prisons.
It is difficult to talk about the individual problems, but many of us were shocked by one particular prison, Wakefield. Every prison has what is known as a black museum, which has the weapons that have been fashioned in prison. One man in Wakefield needed a whole group of warders because, although he. was clearly mentally ill, no mental institution could look after him. We went to look at these terrible black museums, which often contain weapons from incidents in which prisoners had been killed by other prisoners.
One of the outstanding facts that came out of all our visits was the extent to which lifers—murderers, rapists and so on — were clamouring for education. They wanted their education even though they knew that they were in prison for a long time. We are not giving theta sufficient education. For instance, the workshops to keep


them employed are not properly utilised. In the financial year 1981–82, 210 out of the 305 workshops operated at less than half capacity. They are lying there idle, despite the demand from the prisoners who want to work. The hon. Member for Ealing, North has mentioned the issue of whether prisoners should be paid a proper wage instead of the miserable pittance that they are paid. There is a minimum of a 34 per cent. wastage of workshop capacity, as the official figures show, and that statistic can be multiplied many times.
Prisoners are demanding education and it is right that they should have it. One of our central points is the need for primary legislation on education in prisons. There should also be a great reform of our prisons to make them more acceptable — I am speaking personally on that. However, aside from the details of what should be included in the legislation, we argued the need for this primary legislation with great care in some nine paragraphs. The Government's response to this detailed and considered argument came in 14 words, which were:
The Government considers that primary legislation dealing with regimes is neither necessary nor desirable.
The Select Committee had examined this problem with great care and in great detail and suggested that the necessary solution was primary legislation. We were rudely dismissed in 14 words without any real explanation.
This was hardly a compliment to the work of a Select Committee, which is gradually beginning to change what goes on in prisons. This will take a long time and we shall need to bring more people into the struggle. While the Government's reply to our report appeared to accept some of the details, their reaction to the most important findings betrayed a worrying state of affairs. The prison service is, and has been, in a state of crisis for a long time, and something serious needs to be done about it.
Hon. Members should think back to the prison riots that have occurred in the past few years. If we incarcerate criminals for 23 out of 24 hours a day, neglect to give them the education that they need, do not have sufficient teachers or material to educate them, and neglect to have a prison regime, in which, for instance, the officers can conduct the prisoners to the rooms in which they can be taught, that almost encourages rioting and disorder in prisons. Again, this is my personal view. One of the ways to discourage rioting and disorder is to treat prisoners humanely, to have the warders, who to some extent live under the same regime, treated properly and looked after, and to give the prisoners better conditions and better education. That would be a civilised approach.
The Home Office looked at all the Select Committee's discussion of the principles and concluded that no real appraisal was necessary. That is one of the reasons why we want education in prisons to be under the local education authority. Division of labour and authority in prisons should be looked at carefully before primary legislation is introduced, if and when it is. To check on the real meaning of the Government reply, we asked the prison service to come to give evidence to us again. Our first impressions of the Government's reply to the Select Committee report were amply reinforced.
For example, it was staggering to hear the chief education officer of the prison service, Mr. Alan

Baxendale, a most humane and kindly man, declare that prisoners already had a right of access to education, when the Government reply said categorically:
The Prison Rules do not give a prisoner the right to education contemplated in the recommendation.
It is time that that was cleared up between the Government and the education service. I hope that it will be made clear that a prisoner has the right to education. The word "access" can be discussed, but if a prisoner wants education, he should have it.
We found that there was some resistance from prison staff to education. For instance, there are often highly educated prisoners, who are educated beyond the level of the staff. In previous years, many of the prison staff and their organisations had come out against education for prisoners because cuts in education might affect their children outside the prisons and they felt that prisoners had no right to education. Many of us believe that our children outside, and prisoners inside, have a right to education. It will help all mankind if we see to it that both these categories have education.
The report recommends the right of access to education mentioned by the chief education officer. There are other contradictions between what the Government say and what others say. How can anyone not come to the conclusion that the Government are confused on this matter? The Committee visited a number of prisons, and occasionally split up to go to different prisons. Often we could not all go at the same time because of other commitments. The hon. Member for Ealing, North will agree that as a teacher it is easy to recognise poor education facilities, low morale and lack of drive. In some prisons, this was very noticeable and in others, conditions were better.
As the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, we took evidence from what one might call consumers of the prison service, one of them serving a long sentence at the Scrubs, as it is called, and the other recently released from the women's prison at Holloway. We were not allowed to know their names, for obvious reasons, and we are grateful to them for volunteering to come to the Select Committee. Obviously, they had to be accompanied.
We called the long-term prisoner Mr. Smith. He was a gifted and intelligent man who was in for a long time —we had not the faintest idea why he was in, and we do not make inquiries about such things. He wanted to talk about education. Both the prisoners were extremely intelligent people. Mr. Smith started with no aspirations and decided to take O-level classes. The assistant governor recommended that instead he should apply for an Open University course, as he seemed to be intelligent. However, as he said:
It has taken me 14 months to get an Open University course and in that time I have done nothing. I have been stagnant.
He then submitted application after application and was repeatedly promised that education staff would see him. At no time, he claimed, was he properly assessed, and the first time that the education officer came to see him was in preparation for his giving evidence to us. That is a deplorable state of affairs. We could not question a vast number of people, and out of 40,000 prisoners, the Select Committee was only able to question those two prisoners in detail. But we were, of course, able to question other prisoners as we went round.
Miss Doyle at Holloway—her name can be given—was full of praise for the education staff, and in a letter that she wrote to us she said:


I cannot put enough stress on the importance of the education department within Holloway.
It would have done your heart good, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that woman and to see what education had meant to her.
During the war, as a young teacher and soldier, I was stationed in a distant place where there was a young man who was a criminal, to say the least. We could not do anything with him. I had come out of action and was in the Education Corps for the time being. I asked him to come to my office. He refused so I had to use discipline to tell him to come. I discovered that he was an illiterate. In three months, having taken him for an hour each morning, I had him reading. When I left that area to come home he was captain of the football team and had been captain of the cricket team. He came up to me and said, "I'll not forget you." I said, "I'll never forget you." Until then I had never known what illiteracy could do to people.
Many prisoners are prisoners because they are inadequate; because they cannot face up to life, and so take short cuts and wrong paths. But between 15 and 25 per cent. of them—and sometimes more—are illiterate. I hate to use the word "waste" but their illiteracy involves a terrible waste of the time of the prison service. I wonder whether we realise the number of warders who have to go to the cells of illiterate prisoners to read the letters that have come from home, from a loved one or from whomever, simply because those prisoners cannot read. The warders then have to sit with the prisoners and write letters for them.
Many of those prisoners have, for reasons of illness, been pushed aside in life. The young man to whom I referred had been ill throughout his childhood years and for that reason had not learnt to read. Many of the prisoners have all sorts of reasons for not having learnt to read or write. If, on their release from prison, they could have the extra degree of adequacy that literacy brings, it would help the prison service as well as helping those prisoners to cope better with the outside world.
An outstanding feature of the prison service is the education department's battle for survival. The cuts in education within the prison service are far more severe than those experienced outside, as we saw at Wormwood Scrubs. About half the full-time teachers had gone. Those who remained often had difficulty in being able to teach full time. Many of them had been put on part-time work, and NATFHE had been dealing with the problem.
I have mentioned Miss Doyle, who was so full of admiration for the education facilities in Holloway. She said that regularly more than half the classes were cancelled. As has been mentioned, although there are six times as many prison staff as there were some years ago, with a prison population that has doubled in size, the staff still average 15 hours a week overtime. That is excessive overtime. It means that after 5 pm there is hardly anyone available to deal with the prisoners who need education. Some of the prisoners have already been working during the day. Miss Doyle told us that often a two-hour class would last for only an hour. She was emphatic that to provide any real service the education officer had to struggle with the existing system.
It has to be remembered that an education officer has to ask whether certain prisoners or an individual prisoner can be escorted from one part of the prison to a classroom elsewhere. Usually there is nobody available to escort the prisoners. The teacher is left waiting in the classroom and

nobody comes. If any prisoners come to the classroom, usually it is for only half an hour or an hour instead of two hours. The lack of staff to escort prisoners to education classes has the further effect that other prisoners who might also wish to be educated are denied the opportunity.
Miss Doyle told us about the sort of manipulation that takes place on the telephone whenever an escort is required. She referred to
manipulating whatever officer answers the other end of the telephone and saying 'Can you possibly bring this person to their classes because it is necessary?' That is between two people. Either that officer is going to say yes because she believes in what she is doing, or if she is in a bad mood she might say no and that is it.
We were able to question only a small number of members of the prison service. Nevertheless, it was obvious that there are many things wrong in the service, and certainly in the education department. The common thread was a certain degree of confusion and some conflict. We did not see the drive and unity that we wanted to see. I am not condemning individuals. I am saying that the reasons for the confusion and conflict need to be considered with great care. Wastage must be eliminated and the resources, however inadequate, must be used in a proper manner. We were not able to give much consideration to the question of libraries, and I hope that at some stage it will be examined.
I have already referred to the chief education officer, Mr. Baxendale. He told us that great efforts are being made to improve the facilities. As a result of our report, that effort has been increased. A regional conference has been set up to study our report. The staff are grappling with considerable problems and are having some success in overcoming them.
Obviously, it would be incorrect and unfair to say that everything is wrong; it is not. The problem is that no ore seems to know the purpose of the education or indeed of the regime. We were unable to find any clear and unequivocal statement of policy. There are all sorts of papers from the Home Office, the prison service, policy statements, circulars, instructions, prison orders and rules, Government handbooks, and so on. they all say different things. It is an administrative jungle in which people have to work and in which they are trying to educate prisoners.
Instead of dealing with administrative details, the Government—and by that I mean any Government—must sit down and sort out what they are doing with the vast amount of money that is spent. I understand that between £20,000 and £28,000 a year is spent on each prisoner. That is still insufficient and we are asking for a great deal more money, but we want it to be spent intelligently. In the most expensive public schools nothing like that amount is spent. Tremendous sums are spent on armaments, and a few more million pounds spent on the prison service would achieve a great deal.
An attempt must be made to solve the problem of illiteracy among prisoners. It would be a considerable achievement if a prisoner could say, "I learned to read and write in prison". Even in that area, as I have illustrated there are serious problems and restrictions, but when education is given at higher levels, there is the problem of prison officer resentment. In that respect the problems are appalling, and far more Members of Parliament and others, should visit the prisons and formulate their own opinions.
Clear guidance, and hence legislation is necessary. We cannot justify a prison service which simply locks up offenders and lets them out later, having learned new


tricks of the trade and little else. That is what is happening. That is why I read out some of the facts of unemployment in prisons. The Home Office guidance is full of contradictions, as we showed in our report.
I again stress the need for that central point — a prison regimes Act. The case for such legislation is watertight. Without a formal legal document setting out the purpose of the prison regime, we shall continue to see a prison service that is flustering, wasting resources and needing more resources without any clear idea about what it is doing or any unequivocal guidance to its staff about their duties and responsibilities.
I am convinced, as was the Committee, that there are insufficient resources in the prison education service, but I am doubly convinced that confusion, distortion, conflict and lack of purpose in the Home Office and the prison service are wasting money that could be more widely used under a more acceptable regime. It is disgraceful that we pay highly qualified teachers and instructors to sit and wait for prisoners who may or may not arrive at their classes because of vagueness of policy, the bad mood of a prison officer or the half-baked concept that education is a second-rate soft option.
I stress, so that my point is not construed in any other way, that prison officers have a serious task to perform. They do their best to carry out that task honourably and well. Of course there are exceptions, as there are exceptions in other jobs. The regime needs to be improved. A good regime will be better not only for education and prisoners but for the prison staff. I should like to think that prison staff did their job and got off home, without having to work long hours of overtime.
In short, our main report was a carefully thought-out and detailed analysis to which the Government reacted by merely retrenching their messy and ill-conceived policies and administrative confusion. The motion to which I have put my name asks for a token reduction in expenditure which is being squandered through inefficiency and muddle-headedness. I urge hon. Members to support the motion. They will be supporting the Select Committee's report, which will assist prisoners and prison staff, help towards rehabilitation, as opposed to a punitive regime, and educate prisoners for the outside world against further crime.

Mr. George Walden: I do not need to re-argue the case on the virtue of rehabilitation in prisons —that has been eloquently done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will have noted that the reforming zeal in this matter is bipartisan, too.
One may ask, in that case, why I am speaking on this issue. I do so for three main reasons. First, as a new member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, I have been impressed by the work done by my predecessors, and I wish to support the conclusions that they have recapitulated so well. Secondly, I have a naive, perhaps even mystical, belief in the value of education. Just as many, perhaps all, prisoners have some residual spark of humanity—even the hardest cases—many, or perhaps most, have a spark of ability that should be

brought out. I refer to practical and highly intellectual abilities. It is a truism to say—nevertheless, it is still worth saying—that a number of prisoners would not be where they are if that spark of ability had been captured earlier in their lives.
There are some people who would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member or Hillsborough, but who might suffer from a slightly sentimental approach to this problem. We have not heard that approach in the debate so far. They are the types of people who encouraged the release of an American criminal a year or two ago on the ground that he had literary ability. He proceeded to murder for a second time. They are the sort of people who admire — I believe rather too much — a French writer, who was an unpleasant criminal. I do not like his writings, so perhaps I am prejudiced. There are people who are naive, idealistic and sentimental, but none of those descriptions can apply to the pragmatic work that has been done by the Select Committee. We have heard some of the details. The Committee has argued solidly its case for reform. That is not a passionate and sentimental plea for reform, but a well-researched and soundly based one.
My third reason for participating in the debate is my constutuency interest. My constituency includes two prisons next door to each other. One of them is the most important therapeutic prison in the country. The prison next door is an open one. The first prison to which I referred is commonly called a psychiatric prison and contains some strange people who are difficult to manage. Obviously, there is a completely different type of prisoner in the open prison. I stress those differences to show—I know this from having spoken to people at those prisons — that education is equally important in both establishments. There is an enormous range of ability, or sometimes non-ability — there are many semi-literate people and many people taking A-levels. The first prison even contains prisoners who have applied for the Duke of Edinburgh award, and in one or two cases they have won gold awards. That point emphasises what can be done, given the right organisation and resources. I know the value of the work done and of attitudes. The proposed legislation is important.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister that I do not underestimate the work on prison reform on which the Government have begun to embark. That work is sadly overdue and will be immensely expensive. New prisons are to be built—two of them on the borders of my constituency, so I shall be well-endowed with such establishments. Given the enormous and sensible expense on which the Government are embarking, it will be wise to pay attention to the Select Committee's recommendations about putting a little extra effort into what is a relatively small area, but one that will help to keep recidivists out of the prisons. There is also the obvious value on humanitarian grounds.
I cannot claim for a moment to speak with the depth of knowledge and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but I reinforce the case for action at a time when there is a fear in my constituency about the effects of financial restraints. We must especially remember one practical problem—I make this point without political overtones —which the prison education service is soon to face. Inevitably, if teachers as a whole are awarded a reasonably high increase in pay compared with the increase in the


prison award, prison education will be restricted still further. That is a purely neutral statement, but should be borne in mind by all who are concerned with this matter.
My plea is thus that the Government should recognise the importance of this apparently small area of activity and give it the significance that it deserves in their overall strategy on law and order, which I thoroughly endorse.

6 pm

Mr. Clement Freud: The motion to reduce by £1,000 the £342,548,000 allocated to the prison service is a procedural device but it has a certain relevance in that past and present members of the Select Committee seek not financial aid but a different approach to the prison service in general and education in prisons in particular.
The strength of the Select Committee procedure is that it involves people of differing political persuasions being overtaken by the strength of the evidence so that they finish up agreeing in their recommendations. These reports, the first published under the previous distinguished Chairman, Mr. Christopher Price, show that people who had little in common politically were overwhelmed by the arguments, so that their recommendations were unanimous. The weakness of the Select Committee procedure, however, lies in the fact that Governments take so little notice of Select Committee reports.
A few years ago I visited Finland with a parliamentary delegation and saw the central prison in Helsinki — a flourishing organisation with metal workshops, carpentry shops, classrooms and a hospital. The kitchen was staffed entirely by prisoners. There were working parties outside and prisoners painted the building, parts because they needed painting and some to improve the appearance and atmosphere of the cells and other rooms.
In that prison, the most important person was not the governor but the sales director, whose job it was to find a market for the prisoners' work. When I asked the governor how Finalnd had managed to get the running of prisons so right while Britain had got it so wrong, he suggested that it might be because most members of the Finnish Government had been in prison; most had served time as political prisoners during the winter war. The unlikely picture of the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, in a striped prison suit was no doubt on all our minds when we agreed that Finnish Ministers had experience in these matters that our Ministers did not have.
On the publication of the Select Committee reports, one newspaper commented that the Government were long on sympathy but short on action, but it is clear that we must have exactly what the Select Committee recommended —a prison regimes Act so that prisoners know their rights, which at present are entirely at the discretion of the governor.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that just as the Leader of the House of Commons is perhaps less important than the Whips and gets his way less often than they do, the prison governor's role is secondary to that of the prison officers, who have the real power and clout. Only when their situation is right will the overall problem be solved. I do not refer to their pay, which I believe is reasonable, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) pointed out, in 1981 every prison officer worked an average of 14 hours overtime per week and the figure is probably higher now.
Prison officers must recognise that prisoners want and are entitled to education but that they cannot obtain it without the good will of the prison officers. It is natural that some prison officers are jealous when prisoners are seen to receive a better education than their own children or next of kin.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a matter of children or other relatives but that conditions in the service do not make it easy for prison officers themselves to improve their education?

Mr. Freud: I entirely agree. No doubt the Minister wall refer later to the 45,000 inmates of our prisons, but the true figure should be 65,000 because the 20,000 prison officers actually spend more time in prison than the average prisoner. Once a prison officer is allocated to a prison he faces a life sentence which is not commutable. The average prisoner might serve eight, 10 or 12 years, but the prison officer spends his entire working life in that prison. Certainly, prison officers are jealous of the greater facilities available to those who have done wrong than to those who have done right — the prison officers themselves. That is why I believe that we must first achieve contentedness among prison officers and remove the reasons for their jealousy. If that means teaching 20,000 prison officers as well as making teaching available to 45,000 prisoners, so be it—it is a good cause.
I do not believe that the Home Office has the slightest idea of what goes on in the prisons or what should go on in them. If I asked the Minister now whether people are sent to prison as punishment or for punishment I doubt whether he could give an answer. As he seems to have fallen asleep, it seems unlikely that he will even try.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am listening.

Mr. Freud: That is the best news that I have heard for some time. In that case, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman so that he can answer my question. Are citizens sent to prison as punishment or for punishment?

Mr. Hurd: I was simply making it clear that I was listening to the hon. Gentleman with great care. I shall seek to reply to his points later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that some people are sent to prison for different reasons but until there is a prison regime Act, prisoners will not know their rights and privileges. We must have statutory rules on these matters.
In my view the Government are unkeen on prison education because they regard it as a waste of resources. Officers are needed to take prisoners to and from classes. The officers themselves are unkeen to do that because it is a bore. The real trouble is that educationists, prison officers and the Home Office are all working in different directions. Unlike colleges of further education, the workshops are staffed by Home Office employees while the teachers are employed by the local education authority; they have different rates of pay, different working weeks and even different pension arrangements. What we know is how little concern there is on the part of the Government. Although I am tempted, I shall not quote too


much from the three reports before us. But they are valuable reading because they show the Committee's most careful concern for prisoners and their plight.
The evidence to the Select Committee came from all branches of those interested in prisons, prisoners and prison reform. I am not very sold on the average political persuasion of the Prison Officers Association, but I shall quote one member of the association, Mr. Evans. This is the only quotation that I shall use. He said:
I think it has to be said, Mr. Chairman, that if Parliament got it right in education then it would be the first thing that they have had right on the penal system for a very long time.
I believe that one of the problems is that the prison officers feel that they have been let down by the Home Office; let down in that they have been shown no direction in which to go. There is too little lead from the Home Secretary; too much is left to the discretion of the prison governor and he is to some extent at the mercy of the prison officers.
There are many prisons with prison farms. They are farmed and food is produced, but that food is not allowed to be sold because the unions will not allow it. Here I blame not the Home Office but the unions, for not being understanding. I am sorry that prison officers, the vast majority of whom have the well-being of prisoners at heart, have not tried to persuade their union colleagues at the TUC to be more sympathetic in allowing prisoners to work, as they do in Finland. Where that is done it occurs at no great detriment to the employment situation but with enormous elevation of the dignity of man.
I understand that it is time-consuming and organisationally difficult to teach prisoners. But it is astonishing that all sorts of people are allowed to visit prisoners, to preach to prisoners, to entertain prisoners, including celebrities. I was asked several times, before I came to Parliament, to visit Wormwood Scrubs and other prisons, at the behest of the late Lord Stonham, just to talk to prisoners there.
Why cannot educationists do the same and why must we have a procedural difficulty in making prison officers take prisoners in and out of cells? In olden days the prison chaplains had their own prison warder who had keys so that they could go where they liked. In this day and age, it would not be difficult to have a prison teacher with a key, who could move within the confines of the prison to teach those prisoners who were keen to learn. There are many of those.
I want the Minister to examine particularly the plans of the new prisons that are being built, to see whether he can arrange facilities to make it easier for prison education to be effected. There should be fewer keys, more access and greater dignity, and no need to involve more than perhaps one supervisory prison officer in the gambit of being taught.
Our hope for the best sort al education in prisons is, as ever, to present a wide range of educational facilities. I am not sold on any particular examination. As the hon. Member for Hillsborough has said, let us begin with teaching those prisoners who cannot read or write to become literate, but let it range upward to encompass the Open University, via all the other educational hurdles.

Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nation's prisons need a proper assessment of the educational needs of prisoners as they go into prison so that they may be provided with the form of education that

is most apposite? They could start on the ladder with a literacy scheme. Others may be interested in vocational education, or the Open University. In that way, each prisoner can proceed according to his needs, possibilities and aspirations.

Mr. Freud: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be very helpful to do so. It is something that the probation service might well be able to do. Probation officers are very experienced and educationally enlightened people. They could recommend the type of educational progress of prisoners to be borne in mind by the Home Office when it allocates people to prison.
To revert to the Open University, I am saddened, with all the good work that the Open University is doing, that its budget is being cut by 5 per cent. in real terms, even while the number of its customers has risen by 10 per cent. Of course, it will be impossible for the Open University to take prisoners, who are per capita more expensive clients for it, by virtue of being costly to visit; moreover, the university lecturers have to conform to the hours of the prison and not to their hours of availability.
In closing, I say simply to the Minister that the Select Committee report is worthy of more attention than he has accorded it. I ask him to re-examine the dignity of prisoners and to see whether, in the course of this Parliament, he can lend his support to the recommendation for the introduction of a prison regimes Bill and the proposal that education should be part and parcel of the rights of each prisoner.

Mr. Tom Cox: This is a very important debate. The House rarely discusses our prisons. All hon. Members will accept that, sadly, there are very dangerous people in our society who need to be kept in prison.
In a debate such as this we must emphasise once again to the Minister that many right hon. and hon. Members, and many people connected with penal establishments, believe that we have still far too many people in prison. The numbers are increasing year by year and there is major overcrowding in many prisons.
Wandsworth prison is in my constituency. It was built more than 100 years ago. I sit as a member of board of Wormwood Scrubs prison, which is very similar to Wandsworth. It is also very old and overcrowded. It lacks many modern amenities and facilities. I have visited those prisons on my occasions over many years. There are similar establishments in many parts of the country.
We know that prisons are designed to contain people. They are not supposed to be pleasant places, and they certainly are not. I believe that there should be three basics in all prisons. First and foremost, the food that is served to prisoners should be reasonable. There should be work opportunities as well as leisure, recreational and educational facilities.
When I visit a prison and taste the food, I usually find that it is not too bad. The complaint is that between the time that it leaves the prison kitchen and when the inmates sit down to eat it, it is cold. Surely we can all understand that complaint. We would all be annoyed if we went to a restaurant, or even went home, and found that our meal was cold. We can do something about that, but a man in prison cannot. The sad fact is that that causes endless complaints within the prisons, not least from the prison officers who have to suffer the anger of the men who say,


"Why cannot the food that we are expected to eat be served in a pleasant condition?" There could be and should be a much greater improvement in the serving of food.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke about the use of prison workshops. Both Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth have workshops. However, the Government have not done all that they could to develop prison industries. Those who become involved in the prison system understand the difficulties that many people do not appreciate. The prison governors and those who work in the prison workshops often say that the great problem is that men serving short sentences cannot be meaningfully employed. However, I believe that much greater use could be made of the workshops. It is no good the Minister saying that the Government are doing all that they can—they are not. Men are locked up for 22 hours a day, yet prison workshops are either closed or only partially used because there are not sufficient civilian instructors or work available. The Government could do a great deal about both those points. I speak not of the open, modern prisons, but of the vast majority of prisons that are old and overcrowded. The Government, especially the Home Office, must do a great deal more.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) spoke of his experiences in Finland, and I endorse his comments. Many of us have travelled to various parts of the world to visit prisons to see how their systems operate. In many countries there are good, modern prison industries. If they can do it, so can we.
We often hear people say that if prisoners were working and were paid reasonable wages, that would be a means to support the prisoner's family. That is a commendable aim, but there are many problems involved in seeking such a development. The real issue is ensuring that we make use of the workshops and that we get the men out of the cells and occupied. I am sure that the Minister reads the reports of the prison board visitors. He cannot be in any doubt that the visitors feel that there is a great lack of work facilities in our major prisons. The Government have no excuse for saying that they are not fully aware of the problems.
The debate is primarily about education facilities, but when we have an opportunity to debate prisons other issues need to be aired. I warmly welcome the speeches of hon. Members who served on the Committee looking at the education facilities in prisons. I have met many educationists who do their utmost and have a great record of devotion, quite often despite the appalling lack of concern and help from the Home Office. They have proven themselves time and again in trying to develop education facilities.
Despite some of the comments that I have heard this evening, I have found from my close contact with the Prison Officers Association that there is rarely any objection from prison officers to the development of education facilities. A good prison officer knows that if a prisoner is occupied in doing something of interest, rather than being locked away hour after hour in his cell, the prison officers will have to deal with fewer problems. Prison officers come in for a great deal of criticism. I can only tell the House that I meet prison officers who do not know who I am, yet I see them performing great acts of kindness for the men for whom they have responsibility. I hope that the Minister will endorse my comments. Prison officers perform a difficult task with a great deal of consideration, and credit should be given to them.
Many people in prison have great skills and abilities. They need the opportunity to further their education. Men and women in prison can take Open University courses. However, I am concerned with those in our prisons—the majority being men — who cannot read or write. They should be the priority in our education system. When talking to them and trying to build some confidence, I frequently hear them say, "I never learnt to read or write. When I tried to find a job I was asked to fill in a form. I had to make an excuse rather than say that I could not read or fill out a form." Teaching reading and writing should be a major priority.
If a prisoner has certain abilities, he has a degree of confidence and can ask for certain services. He can say that he has O-levels or A-levels and that he wants to take an Open University course. If, in its annual report, a prison can say that a certain number of prisoners took Open University courses, that is to the prison's credit. I welcome that. However, I do not want what I call the elitist education system to develop in our prisons. It would not be right for those with ability automatically to get education facilities, and for prisoners who cannot read or write and lack confidence to have to struggle and rely on sympathetic governors or boards of visitors for those facilities. I hope that the Minister will consider that point further.
The library service is important in prison education. I do not know whether the Committee visited prison libraries. I have visited some, but they were nothing to write home about. Often when a visitor says, "I do not think much of your library", the reply will be, "We do not have the facilities. The prison is crowded". I accept that problem, but a library should be part of a prison education service.
All hon. Members know that a person interested in developing his knowledge and academic ability needs books. That must be taken into account. Many prisons will suffer enormous problems developing their library and education services as a result of the Government's rate-capping legislation. Local authorities often ensured that a library service was available—Hammersmith borough provided one at Wormwood Scrubs. However, there is little hope of a London borough doing that, not because it is unsympathetic but because it does not have the backup facilities. That will occur all over the country. It is one thing for the Minister to tell the House that the Government have a mandate for their rate-capping legislation, but it is another fully to appreciate its long-term effects on services such as the prison service.
Many hon. Members are interested in the prison service, and I could talk about many issues. There are many things wrong with our prisons. The Minister has shown that he, too, realises that new problems are continually cropping up. Many men and women prisoners are mentally ill and should be treated elsewhere, but the prison service does not receive much Government help to move them to a more appropriate establishment for care. There is an increasing drugs problem. I wonder whether the Home Office fully understands the seriousness of it. If it does not, the problem will hit it soon.
If we get our priorities right, we can help. Even under the previous Labour Governments there were money limitations, as there will always be. I accept that. It is regrettable, but it is a fact. However, if we get our priorities right, there is much that we can do. I should like to see more meaningful consultations with the Prison


Officers Association. The Minister may say that consultation takes place, but it does not in the talks with the present executive and general secretary of the association. They want meaningful consultations and want to work to overcome the problems. Sadly, they are not receiving much help from the Home Office, which is unwilling to participate. I hope that the Home Office will recognise the willingness of prison officers and their organisation to be involved in day-to-day issues and in improving prisons.
Either we face up to the problems in prisons or we see greater violence and disruption in our prisons. No hon. Member would wish to see that. I have seen the effects of a prison riot and prisoners on prison roofs. It is frightening to see the anger of men who have had to resort to that because they could not vent their anger and frustration in any other way. The priority of the House and especially of the Home Office should be to assuage that anger by providing education and other facilities. All hon. Members will wish the Home Office well, but it must show hon. Members that it recognises the problems and wants to overcome them.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I welcome the debate on this subject, which is of enormous importance to the prison system and the country. Over the past few years I have visited many prisons and other Home Office penal establishments. I remember visiting Wormwood Scrubs soon after the riots. My memory of an incident during that visit is as fresh as it was that day.
Following the midday meal, I asked to see one of the cells that catered for more than one prisoner. The deputy governor showed me up to a cell. When he opened the door, I saw a bunk bed with a prisoner lying on each level, and a third prisoner lying on a separate bed on the other side of the cell. There was just enough space to walk between the beds. It was early afternoon and I asked whether they were going back to work or to education. They said, "No." I asked them whether they had been out that morning, and they said, "No." I asked them whether they had gone out the previous day, and they said, "No." I asked whether they had been out of their cells at all and they said that they went out for their one hour of exercise. They had been inside for about five months, and during that period they had spent 23 hours a day lying on their beds. They were young men in their mid-twenties and were lying there day after day in an atmosphere of abject despair, boredom and desperation.
I believe that when those men are released they will be more of a threat to society than they would be if they had had the opportunity of work, training and education while in prison. The position may have improved since then. That incident took place some years ago. However, it struck me then that we had a serious problem to face. We know that that problem occurs in many other prisons. We have evidence from the Select Committee and other bodies that far too many prisoners do nothing while they are inside. I noted that the riots at Wormwood Scrubs took place following the closure of the education block, and it is believed that that was a contributory factor. I can well understand why.
I have visited other prisons and left with a greater sense of optimism. I visited the borstal in Rochester—the

original borstal — for young men. It is no longer a borstal as the custodial arrangements have changed, but I trust that training continues. The young men there were doing City and Guilds courses, painting and decorating, carpentry and mechanics. There was a general sense of optimism about the place. The young men were confident and positive. Several with whom I discussed the education that they were receiving said that they were leaving borstal with better qualifications than when they went in. They would be able to do a better job and earn more money. They were positive about this.
That was the other side of the coin from the rather depressing experience at Wormwood Scrubs. One can give examples of both sides. I am sure that many hon. Members could do so who have visited various establishments. I am not sure that a useful purpose would be served. I feel bound, however to mention Barlinnie, not that it comes under the Minister's responsibility, because I feel that the special unit there is of enormous interest to all of us who are interested in prisons. It gives hope by arranging an environment in which people can work, study and learn, even when that environment is unstructured as in Barlinnie. That poses greater challenges to the prisoners than a structured environment. The men can develop themselves, acquire skills and begin to adopt attitudes to society which I venture to suggest they would never have adopted had they remained in their old prisons in Peterhead or wherever they were before they went to Barlinnie. A great deal can be done and achieved for people in prison but, alas, too little is being achieved.
Education in prison has three functions. The first is to relieve the boredom and monotony of day-to-day life in prison, and to widen the horizons of prisoners, especially those serving long sentences, who would otherwise feel as frustrated as the men in Wormwood Scrubs whom I described.
Secondly, education in prison can provide something in prison that nothing else can—it can teach people how to make choices about their lives. People get into serious trouble and are sent to prison because they have handled their lives badly and have made the wrong choice, whatever other pressures there were on them. Society then puts them into a penal establishment where they are virtually unable to make any decisions about their lives. Everything is decided for them, except at Barlinnie as I said.
It is difficult for me to understand how an environment in which men—it is usually men—can make no choices will help them to cope with society outside where they will again have to make good or bad choices, depending on whether they are going straight or getting into further trouble. Education has the supreme attraction in that it enables prisoners to make choices about an element of their lives while they are in custody.
The third function of education in prison is to help prisoners prepare for the day that they are released. As many hon. Members have said, at one end of the scale that can mean teaching basic literacy, which will equip prisoners to cope with the outside world better than if they remained illiterate and—if there were any jobs outside —less able to obtain jobs on their discharge. At the other end of the scale, there are a number of highly intelligent and ingenious prisoners whose resourcefulness and abilities have hitherto been devoted to crime. If those


talents can be diverted into a more positive direction, it will be a gain for them and society. Alas, it does not always happen that way.
I had a constituent on whose behalf I battled for a number of years. He wanted to take an Open University course, but because his first eligible date for parole was before the completion of the Open University course, he was prevented from starting. In the event, of course, he did not obtain parole. He was denied the chance to start his Open University course for reasons that seemed so absurd that I found them hard to believe until the letter I received from the Home Office confirmed that that was the practice in the prison department. I am pleased to say that the man has been released. He did not manage an Open University course, but he is out of prison and sends me occasional postcards to say that he is getting on all right.
Some people within prison and penal establishments are committed to education. I am aware of the enthusiasm with which people at detention centres feel that their approach to education can benefit the young men who go there. That is right, but with the coming of the short, sharp shock sentences—three weeks in practice—I have heard one or two people connected with junior detention centres express regret that they did not have the young people in for long enough and therefore could not do enough for them. If they had them longer they could help them more. That is a slightly ridiculous argument because it implies that the purpose of a sentence is to educate people. Surely that is not the case, but I mention it because it was an example of enthusiasm which somewhat ran away with itself.
It is clear from what hon. Members have said, and what the Select Committee report explained, that there are enormously wide variations in available education. There is an element of chance as to whether a prisoner has good opportunities for education or virtually none. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the information given in the Select Committee report about the number of workshops which were operating at half capacity. The question to which I have tried and failed to obtain the answer in the past is how many prisoners on a given day are working or being trained, and how many are doing nothing? The Home Office has so far been unable to provide that information. I suspect that it would be a serious indictment of what goes on in our prisons. It would reveal how little time is used purposefully and how much is spent in the cells doing nothing.
When replying to the debate, and answering the accusations that there have been cuts in services, the Minister may say that expenditure has increased, but I do not believe that he can deny, whatever has happened to the money, that in real terms there have been cuts in services and that a lower standard of education is now provided in prison than a few years ago. That is why there have been so many pleas for expansion. The Select Committee, the May report, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and almost everyone who has considered education in prison makes a plea for expansion.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the Select Committee recommendation that there should be a new prison regimes Act. That argument seems unanswerable, because unless there is a statutory basis for the matters about which we have been talking, to compel the prison department to provide adequate

minimum standards of education, and adequate opportunities for all prisoners in all establishments, I fear that nothing sensible will happen. Pious hopes and wishes are no substitute for a determination to provide the necessary type of education. That is why I believe legislation to provide minimum standards of education is necessary. I regret the Government's flabby response to the Select Committee report.
In arguing for better educational opportunities in prison, we are not being soft on prisoners. We are in no way condoning the crimes that led prisoners to be in prison. We are saying that decent education can bring a number of benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned the Prison Officers Association. Prison officers have to cope with the consequences of many of the things that are wrong with our prisons. Being a prison officer is a difficult and unenviable task. The provision of better education would help prison officers in their day-to-day tasks. They would be dealing with fewer discontented, angry, frustrated and bored prisoners. Proper education in prison would benefit prisoners while they are in prison and, above all, when they leave; society would be protected. I would feel much safer in the knowledge that prisoners being discharged from prison had spent most of their time working, learning and training rather than lying in cells doing nothing. If I know that prisoners are discharged having served long sentences during which they have done virtually nothing, I am worried that their anger and frustration will probably be directed against society, thus endangering all of us. I regard a commitment to education in prisons as being helpful to society. It would make our streets and homes safer. I hope that the Government will listen to the pleas that have been made on both sides of the House saying that education in prison is so important that we cannot afford just to tinker at the edges and leave the main problem alone. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I agreed with almost all of the first part of what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said. It would be hard to better his explanation of the purposes of prison education and the ideals that should underlie it. I have found the debate fascinating. It is the first of its type that I have attended. It illustrates the importance of the subject and of the Select Committee system. It is the duty of a Select Committee to act as a stimulus to the Government and, when it thinks it necessary, to act as a goad. The two reports have served that purpose.
Sensible Governments welcome stimulus and, although it is more painful, an occasional goading, provided that they are being goaded in the direction in which they think it is right to go. That is certainly true of prison education. The Select Committee is pressing us to devote greater resources to prison education and, generally, to devote more coherent attention to prison education. I welcome that. It is a direction in which we want to go. It is good in itself that the House, through its Select Committee and through today's debate, should show that interest.
The prison department report of 1982 said:
The upsurge of interest in education services did much to raise the morale of education staff".
I am sure that the Select Committee has had that effect in its visits, in its reports and in today's debate. I pay tribute to and compliment those who have taken the lead,


especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) whose great enthusiasm for the subject spans many years. Yesterday I read an Adjournment debate of 1980 in which he eloquently set out his enthusiasm. Today he gave us another eloquent and strongly felt speech. He was well seconded by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). There was idealism in their speeches, and it would be a bad day for the House if idealism became a term of criticism.
The second report contains some harsh words about the Government's response to the first report that, to some extent, have been repeated today. I do not believe that those harsh words were justified, but it is not enough to say that. Any Minister who is confronted with such words in a report of the House should sit up sharply and reflect why they were used and what issue provoked them. There is no division between the Government and the Select Committee about the importance of prison education. We have a good story to tell about performance and I propose to tell it. Nor is there any division about the need for greater resources. At a time of great financial stringency we are acting on that agreement. The prison programme is one of the few major spending programmes that is increasing substantially in real terms and prison education is getting a reasonable share. There is no division about the need to increase the number of weeks in the education year in prisons and there is no division about most of the Select Committee's practical recommendations.
The main division arises on the recommendation in the first report for a new prison regimes Act. That recommendation is repeated in the second report and was repeated again in most of the speeches made by members of the Select Committee and by the hon. Member for Battersea. Perhaps I should explain why the Government have reached a different conclusion before I explain what we are doing in tune with the Select Committee's report.
I am sorry that, in its second report, the Select Committee interpreted the Government's response as dismissive. It was not intended to be so. Much thought has gone into the matter and we do not believe that circumstances that are so varied and changing as the present prison regime can helpfully be prescribed in substantive legislation. The needs of prisoners, staff and the service as a whole are constantly changing and vary widely. Detailed, substantive legislation might become radically out of date and in need of change.
Hon. Members ask themselves from time to time whether legislation in general terms is worth its salt. Hon. Members might not agree, but one of the lessons that I have learnt in a relatively short time is that we have had quite a few Acts that lay down general obligations in general terms, the practical effects of which have not always matched the good intentions with which we set out. Expectations are raised by general phrases and then dashed because those phrases are not turned immediately into reality. That happens under Governments of both colours. We should reflect carefully and be somewhat chary before pursuing that route.
We believe that the type of detailed provisions that the Select Committee has recommended should have a place in legislation but that that legislation should be in the form of the rules approved by Parliament under the Prison Act 1952 and in guidance issued by the Department to its establishments.

Mr. Flannery: Am Ito understand that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the central theme that we have pushed in almost every speech today is not acceptable to the Government, as the Government's answer to the first report shows? Is he now saying that there is adequate legislation which, if worked out properly, would solve the problems of prison education? If that is what he is saying, will he explain why prison education is in such a mess and why the Government have not done something about it through existing legislation?

Mr. Hurd: We believe that prison education requires and is now receiving a great effort in terms of resources and staff. I shall expound on that later. The Select Committee will always want us to do more. That is perfectly proper, but I wish to show that we are doing a great deal and that a great deal more can and will be done in our programmes under existing legislation. I was trying to explain why we do not believe why new primary legislation is necessary. Changes are needed in the present rules to modernise many of the points to which the Select Committee has drawn attention.

Mr. Greenway: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), I am most disappointed by what my right hon. Friend has said. He seems to take refuge in prison rules and to say that they will be looked at and perhaps redrawn with a view to making the prison education system more modern and sensible. But why have not those rules been redrawn for more than 20 years, and why have we been hearing talk of redrawing them for at least five or six years when nothing has happened?

Mr. Hurd: I accept that criticism. I believe that the rules should be redrawn, and they will be. However, I am afraid that I cannot say exactly when the House will be asked to approve new versions. I do not think that my hon. Friend would disagree that it is important that as much effort as possible should go into the resources that are increasingly being devoted to prison education. Nevertheless, I accept my hon. Friend's rebuke. However, the practical need is for a revision of the prison rules rather than primary legislation. In the light of their experience in other areas, hon. Members will know of the limited value of new primary legislation, which takes a great deal of time and requires a lot of effort and which may simply raise expectations that cannot quickly be satisfied.
I should like to give a more detailed reply than that which we gave to the Select Committee's first report as to what is happening to our efforts in prison education. I shall deal with the money involved first, but I entirely accept the point made by many hon. Members that figures for expenditure are not in themselves the answer. In 1982–83, the budget for education, libraries and vocational training equipment was £10·5 million, in 1983–84 it was £12·1 million and in the current financial year it stands at £12·9 million. Those figures, however, are minima because they do not include several costs which fall outside the prison budget but which are, in effect, to do with prison education. They compare with £500,000 for all prison education in the mid-1960s. So it was £500,000 then and it is £12·9 million now.
The cash figures that I have just given represent increases of 15·2 per cent. in 1983–84, and 6·6 per cent. in 1984–85—or, in other words, an increase of almost 23 per cent. in expenditure on prison education over those two years. That is considerably higher than the rate of


increase over the same years for prison service expenditure overall and is, of course, well ahead of, and indeed about double, the rate of inflation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figure per head, per prisoner?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that I have that statistic to hand, but I can certainly let the hon. Gentleman have it. I am talking about the rather rapid rise in real terms in the expenditure on prison education.
The cash that I have just described has enabled the number of full-time and part-time teachers to be increased in 78 prison service establishments, split between 50 prisons and 28 young offender establishments. That increase amounts to 36 full-time teachers and at least 27,000 hours of part-time teaching.
The improvement in the Home Office per capita payments to the local library authorities for their facilities in prison service establishments is reflected in a rise from £3·47 to £5·085. The Home Office has been able to open negotiations with the Open University for a modest increase in the number of establishments designated for Open University degree study.
So far I have dealt with the cash involved and the total of manpower, but I should like now to discuss the use of that manpower. Prison education is a partnership that involves the Home Office, the local education and public library authorities and the principal trade unions concerned. With them are associated the Department of Education and Science and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and, increasingly nowadays, a range of other education institutions and public bodies with an interest in such work.
In recognition of the importance of the subject and of its growth, the Home Office recently established with its main partners a national consultative committee for prisoners' and trainees' education services in order to improve their communication and co-operation with each other, and to harmonise their policies and practices. I can, I think, report that the consultative committee is developing well, and in line with that development it became possible early this year for the Home Office to improve the internal organisation of its education branch so that it can work more effectively.
I shall comment briefly on some of the specifically educational recommendations in the Select Committee's first report as they relate to prisoners. I readily accept that those recommendations do much to chart the professional way ahead for prison education. We accepted the first two recommendations about follow-on education facilities in the community for prisoners when they come to the end of their sentences. The proposals carry forward policies that the Home Office was already working on, and a working party has now been set up to consider how they can be further developed. We likewise accepted the Committee's three recommendations dealing with professional issues in the staffing of the education services, the support that staff need on the job, their bases in colleges of further education or institutes of adult education, and the arrangements for their in-service training. Those, too, were welcome recommendations that pushed us further along a path upon which we had already set out.
One particularly important recommendation of the Select Committee involved the need to eliminate the

38-week educational year. We accept that. Progress is steady, and in this financial year we are taking steps to raise it to 40 weeks. We shall endeavour to manage our resources so that it is possible to raise the educational year to at least 46 weeks over the next two financial years. As the House will know, education already functions throughout the year in detention centres, and the new youth custody centres are being geared to a 46-week educational year. I hope that the House welcomes that response to one of the Select Committee's most important recommendations.
Concern for vocational training ran through many of today's speeches, and certainly through the Select Committee's first report. Again, we had no difficulty in accepting the recommendation that account should be taken of the experience of local education authority colleges in vocational training to broaden the scope of training in prisons. That, too, was something on which we were working. We like to seek advice over the widest possible area. The other two vocational training recommendations dealing with the unification of education, vocational training and construction industry training within individual prison managements, and the transfer, with safeguards, of vocational and construction industry training instructors to the employment of the LEAs, caused the Government a good deal of heart searching. Indeed, the House will have seen that from our response. After that heart searching, we decided to accept the first recommendation but not the second. The second recommendation led to acute differences of opinion among those concerned. It would be rather expensive, and it is not clear to us, at least at present, that it represents the best use of the money available.
That brings me to the Committee's other recommendation, that construction industry training should be united with vocational training arrangements as an integral part of prison education departments. Our sympathies lie with that recommendation. It is being studied in the Home Office as part of our management review of the prison service, and it is also being looked at in its professional terms within the prison department's directorate of regimes and services by the professional management interests involved. I cannot commit the department today to a particular solution, but we agree that a sensible management device is needed in the headquarters of the prison service and in individual prison service establishments to enable the LEAs, vocational training, construction training and education services to work more closely together than they do at present.
Several hon. Members have dealt with prison staff and that raises another point to which the Select Committee attached great importance. The Government were strongly in sympathy with what the Select Committee said about the education of prison service staff, especially prison officers. One recommendation that was made was that prison officers should take part as teachers in prison education programmes. There is a long tradition in the prison service, as hon. Members will know, of prison officers taking part as teachers in prisoners' and trainees' education programmes. I must admit that that tradition has been undermined in the past few years by the pressures on prison officers with which we are all familiar. It is the intention of the prison service, now that we are recruiting an increasing number of prison officers, that that tradition of former years should be resumed. I hope that the House will welcome that.
Thus, 11 vocational training instructors are following part-time courses leading to recognised certificates of education. Three more are doing the same leading to City and Guilds technical teachers' certificates. One is following a full-time course leading to a BEd degree, and one is following an Open University course. That is not the end of the tale. I could give other examples. In a number of establishments in Britain prison service staff have participated in recent years in local in-service training courses for part-time teachers run by the relevant LEAs.
Several hon. Members have rightly dealt with the problem of illiteracy. Let me give the House some statistics so that hon. Members will be able to assess the situation from their own professional experience. They show the importance that we attach to that matter and the progress that we have in mind. Of 34,670 prisoners who were assessed for literacy in a recent academic year, 5·9 per cent. were found to have a reading age of eight years or less and 12·9 per cent. one of 10 years or less. The figures for youth custody centre trainees were 10,759, 5·4 per cent. and 17·5 per cent. respectively. For detention centre trainees, the figures were respectively 12,460, 5·6 per cent. and 21·4 per cent. Resources are available to help youth custody and detention centre trainees with reading ages of less than 10 years and, increasingly nowadays, trainees with reading ages of less than 12 years are being included with them.
Resources for prisoners go to those with reading ages of eight years or less but increasingly now they are beginning to take in prisoners with reading ages below 10 years. The hon. Member for Hillsborough will probably agree that some of the best work in the education service is done with prisoners and trainees who have literacy and numeracy handicaps. The anecdote that he told us about that was particularly telling. The quality of the teaching and learning is usually high. However, we would all recognise from those figures that there is still a long way to go. A critical question has been asked about the situation in which staff increases are occurring while the overtime figures remain stubbornly high. I hope that in assessing that the House will keep in mind the immense increase in demand which has occurred. In the immediate post-war years in which the statistics start there was not substantial overcrowding in prisons. In addition, as the House knows, the number of dangerous prisoners serving long sentences for crimes of violence, including terrorism, has grown in recent years. Obviously that imposes a substantial extra demand. It means that there is a greater emphasis on security in the priorities of the prison service. Other facilities have improved alongside the improvement in education facilities. The demands on the prison service have hugely increased and that must be remembered when we consider the figures for staff and overtime. However, we are not in the least complacent about that. We are conscious of the need to use staff effectively and efficiently—hence the joint manpower review conducted by Home Office and Treasury officials and referred to in our reply to the first report. There will always be scope for improvement in the use of manpower.
The work of that review helped the Government last year in their decision to increase the size of the prison service by some 5,550 staff in the four years to April 1988. Because of the allegations of waste, it is worth pointing

out that in the spring term of 1984 91 per cent. of all daytime education programmes and 87 per cent. of evening programmes throughout prison establishments were achieved. That is probably a rather higher figure than one would deduce from some of the things that have been said. The education centres at Leeds and Brixton, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred, are now in use. That at Leeds is in full-time use and that at Brixton in part-time use.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), backed up by others, made an understandable criticism of the difficulties experienced in keeping prison workshops going at the level that he would wish. It is true that prison industries have suffered, like other activities including education, from pressures on accommodation and manpower. Of course, the industrial climate has made matters more difficult, as anyone who has dealt with the problems of prison industries in manufacturing, particularly in finding markets for products, will understand. However, we are doing everything that we can to put prison industries on to a firm basis and to increase the extent to which they already meet prison department needs.

Mr. Freud: When the Minister says that the education programmes have been achieved, does he accept that, without a prison regimes Act under which prisoners would have a right to attend such classes as take place, the fact that a class takes place without a sufficient number of prisoners is no criterion of achievement?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman can prove that. I was trying to answer the point that, because of muddles, staff shortages, and so on, many programmes that were published and subscribed to did not take place. The figure that I gave was not perfect, but it was reasonable and showed how matters stand at the moment. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's belief that a change in the statutory requirements would in practice create a great difference on the ground. The difficulties with which staff wrestle remain and the greatly increased resources that we are putting in would not be increased by statutory requirements.
Reference has been made to libraries. The total book stock of libraries in all prison service establishments in 1982–83 was 711,000. On 31 March last year just over 24,000 prisoners and trainees — 56 per cent. of the custodial population—had books on loan. I note what has been said about inadequate facilities, but that figure shows fairly widespread lending.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough dealt with the question of classes which were cancelled because there were no escorts to take the prisoners to the classes. That certainly has been a problem. The additions to prison officer staff which we plan to make over the next few years and the efforts which we are making to improve the use of available manpower should ensure that prison officer escorts are regularly available to allow evening classes to take place. Escorts are crucial and we are determined that staff should be available. It is no secret that we want to have more staff available in normal hours, without overtime, because we believe that that would benefit all prison routines and regimes.

Mr. Flannery: I am glad to hear that promise. However, at holiday times, prisoners are still in prison while their teachers are on holiday. What can be done to ensure that education continues during that time?

Mr. Hurd: I will look into that matter in more detail. I said that there has been an increase in the number of weeks per year in which education is given. That covers part of the point, but the hon. Gentleman has raised one of the limitations with which we have to deal.
I should remind the House of some of the facts of the building programme, because they are relevant if hon. Members are to understand the background against which prison education is being improved.
Not all establishments are in poor condition, but the size of the population greatly exceeds the numbers that can be accommodated in what the House would regard as a respectable way. About 45,000 prisoners are being accommodated in a system that has a normal capacity of about 39,000. That is the main reason for the major new prison building programme. Fourteen new prisons are in the pipeline between now and 1991 and major extensions or refurbishments are planned or in progress at 90 establishments, including 23 of the 25 local prisons.
By 1991, a total of 10,000 new places will have been created. One fifth of prison accommodation will be less than seven years old and over half will be less than 30 years old. We cannot have a meaningful debate on prison education without understanding how the building needs are being considered.
We are aware that resources, the funds that they represent, buildings and staff are not enough without improved management information and we are beginning to introduce that. Computer technology is being introduced to help its development and better value for money is being sought for the 61 per cent. of the prisons Vote which is spent on staffing establishments. There will be greater delegation of authority and greater clarity about the lines of accountability so that staff with local responsibility for operational decisions are also accountable for making the best use of resources.
I do not think that the Select Committee would disagree with my view that we must keep a sensible balance between progress in prison education and progress in other services within the regime. If we stress one too much at the expense of the others we could destroy the interlocking and balance of services which are essential to good regime management.
I have tried to deal with the progress being made on money, staff, facilities and the diversity of educational arrangements to which we are committed. We intend to press ahead with that progress. I am delighted that the House has cross-examined us about it and I am sure that it will continue to do so. We are glad that the Select Committee has urged us forward and that its reports and this debate have alerted the House and the public to what is being done and what needs to be done. We are not in the least complacent about the gaps and inadequacies that remain, and I endorse what the hon. Member for Tooting said about prison service and the work of prison officers. They perform a notable service in sometimes difficult circumstances.
It will take time and continued commitment, but I believe that we are developing a realistic and humanitarian regime of useful activity for prisoners during their sentences and preparing them for their return to the community. That is an essential part of our prison policy and, thus, an essential part of the general strategy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues have worked out for this area of our national life.
It is fair to say that, partly as a result of the efforts of the Select Committee, prison education has come of age. We intend that its manhood should be vigorous and flourishing.

Mr. Greenway: We have had a valuable and wide-ranging debate. I am glad that the Minister has been able to tell us of progress being made in many areas.
I am sure that the Select Committee will continue to take a close interest in what is happening and how things develop and I am sure that it has not said its last word on a prison regimes Act. However, in view of the progress that the Minister has announced, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The original Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

Class VIII, Vote 5

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £95,152,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing administration; central administration including royal commissions, committees etc.; privatisation of hydraulics research station; the audit commission; payments in connection with licence fees; building construction and civil engineering research and environmental research and surveys. —[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): As the five remaining Estimates are all referred to in the second report of the Select Committee on the Environment, a joint debate on them will be permitted. Mr. Speaker has selected the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi.).
That Class VIII, Vote 5 be reduced by £2 million in respect of Subhead DI (Dog and game licences).
The amendment may be moved formally, if desired, at 10 o'clock, when all Questions necessary to dispose of the Estimates have to be put.

Sir Hugh Rossi: This is the first time that a Select Committee on the Environment report has been debated in the House since the new Select Committees were set up in 1979. The five Votes on the Order Paper encompass criticisms made by the Select Committee in respect of the Department of the Environment's main Estimates for 1984–85.
In fairness to the Department, I should say at once that each criticism is made in respect of a sum that is small in the context of the overall expenditure proposed by the Department, although not necessarily small by the standards of the majority of taxpayers.
However, each criticism raises a point of principle, which is why the House is being troubled with this matter.. The criticisms relate to parliamentary approval for expenditure being assumed by the Department rather than sought, to public money being wasted, to public money being spent in advance of need, or to administrative costs that seem excessive. In each case, the Committee thought it right that Parliament should exercise its control over public expenditure and bring these matters to the attention of the House.
The first Vote for consideration is Class VIII, Vote 5, relating to dog and game licences. The Department intends to pay £3·45 million to the Post Office for its services in collecting £750,000 in dog licence fees. That is a patent absurdity for which there cannot be any justification in revenue collection terms. Nor, apparently, is there any justification in licensing terms when it is learnt that about half the owners of dogs do not bother to take out licences and that no authority seems worried about that default or about taking steps to make sure that it is put right. Indeed, it is arguable that those breaking the law by not licensing their dogs are performing a public service by minimising the loss that occurs to the taxpayer each time a licence is issued.
I approach the whole question of dog licensing with a sense of déjà vu. It is 10 years almost to the month since I proposed a new clause, to what became the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to the effect that the responsibility for the issue of dog licences should be transferred to local authorities, which should be allowed to charge fees within limits laid down by the Secretary of State but sufficient to fund and provide a proper dog warden service for the care and control of dogs.
That new clause was tabled against a background in 1974 of public anxiety concerning toxicara canis, which causes blindness and liver damage, mainly to children, when worms penetrate the soles of the feet as a result of walking in areas where dogs have excreted; against a background of growing concern against rabies, which was then 200 miles from the Channel ports and approaching the coast of France by about 20 miles a year, and which I understand has now reached the Channel ports; against a background of vocal concern against packs of strays, in different parts of the United Kingdom attacking people; and against a background of the general disgust that was felt about the fouling of paths and parks, particularly in urban areas.
The intensity of the problem varied from area to area, so the proposal was that local authorities should each have discretion whether to take advantage of the right to create a dog warden service and to pay for it through a licensing system. In the event, that new clause was not debated. Instead, the Government gave an undertaking, which I accepted, to set up a working party on dogs, and that was set up in the same year.
That working party did not report until 1976. However, when it did report, it endorsed the dog warden concept, a service to be operated by local authorities and to be funded out of fees, with local authorities being able to charge dog owners. The working party found that there were 6 million dogs, of which 1 million were strays, which showed the size of the problem then.
It also pointed out that the fees had remained unchanged since 1878, when they were fixed at 7s. 6d., today's equivalent of 37½p, which is the present cost of a dog licence. The working party recommended in 1976 that the fee should be increased to £5 to provide the necessary service to take care of and control dogs.
Since 1976, no Government have done anything about the problem, save in Northern Ireland where, by coincidence, a dog licensing system of £5 was set up during the period when I was privileged to be Minister of State there. There were serious problems there because

packs of wild dogs were savaging sheep across the countryside and causing a great deal of expenditure in compensating farmers for the loss that they were suffering.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a security argument in Northern Ireland in that it would not have been desirable to have farmers going about shooting packs of dogs?

Sir Hugh Rossi: That was an element in the situation, but the main worry was the need to control packs of wild dogs which were causing so much damage to the economy, and it was necessary to fund a scheme by which the authorities could deal with that problem.
Apart from what I have described, nothing was done. The problem came to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts, which, in its report to the House in 1982–83, strongly criticised what it called the
futile collection of small sums of money in respect of less than half the dog population".
That was in July of last year, and a Treasury minute in response said that "due consideration" would be given to that comment of the PAC. When the matter came before my Committee a few weeks ago, we referred to that exchange. The replies that we received from officials of the Department of the Environment were not encouraging. The best reply received was that the matter "remains under scrutiny".
We have a situation, therefore, in which a Committee of the House has criticised the futility of still collecting 37½p per dog, where the owner has condescended to take out a dog licence, with the Government having to pay the Post Office approaching £4 million to carry out that service.
For that reason, the amendment standing in my name and in that of members of the Select Committee would reduce the Vote by £2 million. In other words, we would not pay the Post Office for the remainder of the year, thereby suspending the service of the issue of dog licences. There does not seem to be any licensing need for it, and, in any event, why should money be thrown away on what another Committee has called a futile exercise?
If the Minister cannot, when he replies, say either that the dog licence will be abolished altogether or that a sensible system will be introduced along the lines recommended by the working party, I hope that the House will join me in removing £2 million from the Vote.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend made the sensible suggestion that the control of dogs, as a reasonable level of licence fee, should be devolved to local authorities. Perhaps to save him problems later, he would agree that it would be wise for local authorities to have discretion to reduce the rate of fee for dogs owned by pensioners.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I did not want to bore the House with all that I proposed in 1974. There was contained in my proposal then discretion for local authorities to grant exemptions in suitable cases, including not only the area to which my hon. Friend referred but, perhaps more important, guide dogs for the blind. I agree that certain exemptions would be necessary.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend gave the staggering statistic that it costs five times more than the revenue received to collect the present dog licence fee. My hon. Friend was a distinguished Minister


in Northern Ireland, but for some inexplicable reason he is no longer in office. How is the scheme working in Northern Ireland? Is the revenue well exceeding the cost of collection, and is it being used in the right way?

Sir Hugh Rossi: I made inquiries, in anticipation of being asked that question, but was told that it was too early for meaningful figures to be given. Therefore, I cannot answer my hon. Friend, although at the appropriate time the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could be asked a parliamentary question.
The British Board of Agrément comes under Class VIII, Vote 2, C6. Approval is assumed by the Department. The board has been operating without statutory cover since 1966. Throughout 18 years, successive Governments have intended that the board should move gradually and steadily to a self-financing basis, but that has never happened. A grant of £447,000 is required in the coming Estimates. We are told that the grant to the board in 1984–85 is expected to exceed expenditure in 1983–84 by almost 50 per cent.
The evidence seems to be that the board is not moving steadily to a self-financing position although pious hopes have been expressed in answer to our questions that that position may be reached by 1988. Even that expectation is based upon an increase in the real growth of fees plus a 10 per cent. per annum growth in business. It can be argued that those two concepts are self-cancelling or self-contradictory. However, those are the bases of the estimates that have been put before the house for its consideration.
The Committee makes two recommendations. First, the Department should produce a quicker and more certain path to viability for the board. Secondly, proper powers should be sought from Parliament to continue financial support beyond 1984–85. The Committee finds it unsatisfactory that such a board can operate without proper parliamentary authority and has done so since 1966 on a purely ad hoc basis.
Sub-head C13 deals with the London zoo. Over three years £4·9 million has been paid to the zoo by means of Supplementary Estimates without any provision being made in the main Estimates. The three years of indecision were suppose to allow the zoo to produce a break-even plan. However, an additional £2 million is required this year and we are told that more will be required next year. No clear view seems to have emerged on whether the society, as a learned body engaged in research, should receive Government financial support on a proper basis. We do not want to see the zoo sink under the weight of its financial problems, but taxpayers' money must be protected. We recommend that the Department carries out a review before next year's Estimates are presented, and that the position of the Zoological Society of London should be reconsidered if a continuing grant is needed. If so, proper powers should be sought from Parliament, especially if future capital projects require financial support. These are matters of proper accounting and accountability to the House and it seems that they have evaded the Department.
A criticism must be made of sub-head C9, which deals with grants to voluntary bodies. The Vote is rising from £300,000 to £1 million in one year. The Committee is supportive of the general intention that the Department of the Environment should give financial support to voluntary organisations that are undertaking work with which it is

concerned. However, it is wrong that such expenditure should be undertaken without specific parliamentary authority and without statutory authority.
In making payments through the Vote in this way, we are being asked to grant a supply of money to Ministers for virtually undefined purposes. That is not acceptable. For many years the Department of Health and Social Security has provided moneys by way of aid to voluntary organisations under what are known as section 64 grants, for which there is proper statutory authority. We hope that the Department of the Environment will introduce proposals before next year's Estimates are produced.
Class VII, Vote 1 is headed "Housing, England (Department of the Environment)." The Committee's examination revealed that under sub-head A 1(1) the Department has been paying subsidy money to local authorities in advance of need. Expenditure was £113 million in 1982–83 and £23 million in 1983–84. Local authorities over claimed subsidy because of an unexpected fall in interest rates. The subsidies are paid to local authorities in 10 tranches a year. The Committee feels that greater effort could have been made in adjusting the tranches to ensure that the overpayments were not made which now require an adjustment to be made in this year's Estimates.
Class VIII, Vote 1 deals with "Local Environmental Services, etc., England". Oral evidence was that the Vote allowed too much provision for inflation. The witnesses subsequently corrected the figures. We welcome the Department's assurance that the Vote will be monitored more closely in future and that corrective action will be taken when needed.
The royal palaces and royal parks are dealt with under Class VIII, Vote 4. The Committee found that administrative costs were excessive. Two new bodies have been established, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Board of Trustees of the Tower Armouries. The Estimate showed that the administrative costs of the new bodies might not be under proper control and might be consuming too much of the resources that have been allocated. A glance at table 2 on page 52 will explain our cause for concern. Salaries have increased from £5·7 million in 1982–83, to £6·4 million in 1983–84, and to £11·78 million in 1984–85. General administrative expenditure has increased from £1.5 million in 1982–83 to £4·7 million in 1983–84 and to £5·1 million in 1984–85. When pressed, the witnesses in oral evidence told the Committee:
This table will not do and we are going to have to submit …a revised estimate.
As a result, we have a new set of figures in the revised Estimates in table 2 at page 73. The Committee is concerned that completely inaccurate figures for the expenditure in 1982–83 and 1983–84 were given to Parliament when the Estimates were presented. If the Department does not know until close questioning takes place how much money has been spent under sub-heads in previous years, it becomes difficult to assess the need for provision in the current year.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the sums that I have mentioned are relatively small when compared with the gross expenditure of the Department of the Environment. They should not be regarded in too exaggerated a way and we should not lose our sense of proportion. The Committee welcomed the dialogue that it had with Department officials and the explanatory


memoranda that they submitted to it, which greatly assisted in pinpointing the errors which were eventually discovered and which I am criticising now. There has been much co-operation, but the Department has been put on notice that a number of arrangements need to be reviewed before it presents next year's Estimates. We look forward to a continuing dialogue with it.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall not follow too closely the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), and certainly not what he said about dog licences. I noted that he said very little about game licences, which is a matter of some interest. However, I shall not participate in that debate as I know that other hon. Members will.
We are discussing not only the second report from the Select Committee but the Estimates, and in particular Class VII, Vote 1, which is the one about which I shall speak. It concerns
expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services.
In other words, we have the opportunity and the right to examine the Government's attitude to housing when they drew up the Estimates. It is important that we spend a little time on this.
On page 51 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1984–85 to 1986–87", in the section on housing, it says:
The Government's policy priorities for housing are:

(i)to increase the level of home ownership;
(ii)to encourage the repair and improvement of existing stock; and
(iii)to concentrate public resources within the housing programme on capital provision for those in greatest housing need."
I shall examine that last point first. Page 53 shows that the number of permanent new dwellings completed have gone down steadily, as has the money available for local authorities. Page 50 shows that the total general subsidies will be down from £945 million to £703 million. The total current expenditure is also down.
We are told that total capital expenditure will be the same, but increased inflation means that, in real terms, there will be a reduction. It is this about which we are concerned, as it is a reduction in housing. The Government have to answer some important questions. Something that has been floating around for some time, which I know is greatly worrying the construction industry, is the question whether there will be a moratorium. I am constantly getting letters from various bodies that are worried about this and the effect that this will have on the construction industry. We are entitled to have some early replies on this matter.
In its election manifesto for the last general election campaign, the Labour party made it clear that
Britain faces a major housing crisis.
We put forward our policy on this. We also said:
The Tory recession has seriously damaged the construction industry…Nearly 400,000 construction workers are on the dole.
While private sector housing has improved, public sector housing has gone from bad to worse. Now, in local authorities, people want homes but the waiting lists are getting longer and longer and more and more people are suffering as a result.
I am glad to see the Minister of Housing and Construction in his place. He recently went to my city of Liverpool, having been preceded by the Secretary of State. When the latter went round the city he said that he had never seen worse housing in all Europe. The Minister said that the position in Liverpool was the same as in other great cities. Let us take those two statements together, as they are not entirely contradictory, and assume that they are both correct. That means that the Government should be pumping more money into the construction industry. They should be helping local authorities on a much greater scale than they are, so that local authorities can build more homes, get more repairs done and achieve a better housing programme.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The hon. Gentleman is not quoting accurately, although he was not purporting to do so, either from what I said or from what my right hon. Friend said. I am sure that he would want to make that clear to the House.

Mr. Heffer: I do not have the exact words in front of me, but I took the quotations from the Liverpool Echo. I am not saying that I got the exact words, but the idea of both those statements was there. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the housing problems of Liverpool and other great cities are extremely bad. That is causing immense hardship, many difficulties, much anxiety and worry, the break-up of homes, young people moving into overcrowded conditions with their parents and so on. In our debate on the Estimates, the Opposition are saying that the Government's policy of reduction is not acceptable and must be reversed.
Volume 1 of the Government's Expenditure Plans, page 6, says:
The revised net provision of £2,500 million for 1984–85 is a reduction of £490 million compared with Cmnd. 8789.
That is for the previous year. It continues:
The new level of gross capital provision is broadly the same in cash terms as that for 1983–84.
That means that, because of inflation, there will be a reduction. It continues:
The net provision for 1985–86 and 1986–87 is £2,610 million and £2,680 million respectively. That for 1985–86 is a net reduction of £500 million compared with Cmnd. 8789".
That is an important point in these Estimates that must be put on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) dealt with the Housing Defects Bill. He pointed out that people who live in privately owned accommodation will get assistance to deal with the defects in that accommodation, but local authorities, which need such assistance, will not get any separate financial assistance and will have to pay for improvements out of HIP allocation. That is bound to affect the future provision of homes.
We felt that we had to draw attention, in this very important debate on the Estimates, to the serious situation that exists in housing and construction. I say in all seriousness to the Government that, after just over one year in office, they must revise their whole attitude to the construction industry. If they fail to do so, the situation will go from bad to worse. We shall end up with very few apprentices, so that when there is an upturn we shall not have the skill that is required in the industry. I notice the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who


often disagrees with me, nodding his head in assent. We ask the Government to change their attitude to the construction and housing industries.

8 pm

Mr. Richard Alexander: I wish to speak to Class VIII, Vote V, subhead D1, dealing with dog licences. We all know the background to the dog licence scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) spelt it out yet again, but the problem is becoming a matter of folklore. Since 1878 the dog licence has cost 7s. 6d.—37½p since 1971. Only half the dog owners pay for licences.
What is not so well known is the lack of responsibility within Government for the dog licence fees, collection and rates. In my innocence I tried to table a question on dog licence fee rates and I thought that the Home Office would have responsibility for it. I was told that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was responsible for dog licences and fees. I then tried to table a question to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I was told that I could not do it because it was a Revenue matter, and therefore a matter for the Treasury and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his annual Budget Statement. Information concerning the cost of collecting the dog licence fees can be found only in the Estimates before the House which, happily, we are at long last debating tonight.
The Select Committee on the Environment has done the House a service by exposing the fact that the cost to the taxpayer of collecting dog licences is now this year £3·4 million. The question that the Select Committee had in its mind—and which I am sure all hon. Members wishing to speak on the subject have in their minds—is: why do we need dog licence fees? What is their purpose? Are they to raise revenue or are they to control the dog population? Or are they supposed to do both? The answers that the officials gave in reply to questions showed—I hope that I am not being unfair to them—that basically it was a question of raising revenue, although they rather unhappily describe the revenue as
regrettably now of a negative amount".
I would have hoped that we have dog licences primarily to control the dog population, and that that should govern our thinking on the matter. There are too many instances in our constituencies of dogs fouling footpaths, playing fields and parks; of dogs causing enormous danger to traffic by roaming the streets. That danger is caused not only to traffic but to passengers who are properly going about their duties in vehicles which have suddenly to brake because of the natural instinct to avoid danger to an animal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has properly drawn to the attention of the House the fact that rabies is now almost at the French coast. Many experts fear and believe that it is only a matter of time before it gets into Britain. I hope that they are wrong. Certainly, the proper control of dogs will lessen the possibility of rabies getting a hold. It will be easier to deal with stray dogs if they are licensed and if a sensible fee is paid for the privilege—and if a hefty fine is imposed if the owner fails to take out a licence.
There should be a sensible fee for a dog licence. The fee should go to the bodies in the community most affected by the activities of dogs — in other words, local authorities, not the state, should be entitled to charge for and issue dog licences. There should be a fee of about £10

and a fine for those in default. If local authorities were able not only to collect the fee but to collect the fine where the fee is not paid it would be an encouragement to them and would also provide them with the funds to provide dog wardens and to keep their streets, playing fields and parks clean.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green was properly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There would, of course, need to be proper exemptions, and I would not like anyone, in listening to or reading the debate, to think that the Tories or anybody else were proposing, willy-nilly, a flat rate fee for a licence, without any exemptions. Naturally, the people who need dogs—the blind, the handicapped and old-age pensioners —would be exempt. But I still believe that, even though people were exempt from the licence fees, they should nevertheless be obliged to take out a licence. Such a fee and such an arrangement would encourage those who do not really want to have a dog to dispose of it.
In many cases, dog owners keep dogs in conditions falling not far short of cruelty, caged up and unwanted. Consequently, the dogs howl through the night, to the great annoyance of neighbours and residential neighbourhoods. Those are complaints that I get from areas in my constituency. If the keeping of a dog was a privilege for which people paid, only people who wanted a dog would take the trouble to have one, and those who did not care for the animals at all would dispose of them.
In the answers to questions put at the Select Committee meeting we were told that the Government are considering what to do about dog licences. I hope that the debate will concentrate the minds of those in Government who are supposed to be thinking about them, because our evidence is that that thinking is singularly lacking in concentration so far. Witnesses knew of no papers that were being studied and of no work being done. The matter was said to be "under consideration". That seemed to the Committee to be a euphemism for saying that someone was sitting on his or her hands about the whole matter and would, until prodded, continue to do so. The debate highlights the scandal of this expensive inactivity. I hope that it will take a few bottoms off a few hands and produce action along the lines that I have suggested.

Mr. Michael Hancock: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has referred to the dog licence scandal. We are all only too well aware of the problem, having read the evidence given to the Select Committee. The evidence shows how stupid the whole system has become. If the purpose of a licence is to control the dog-owning population, the present licensing laws are inadequate. An increase in the licence fee would go far towards solving the problem. The RSPCA kennels in any constituency show that the most expensive clogs suffer from the cruelty about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. This week I visited an RSPCA kennel in my area. I was horrified to see the condition of two dogs—a sheepdog and a red setter, two of the most expensive dogs it is possible to buy. Both were less than two years old and had suffered especially badly from the actions of owners who did not give a damn about the conditions in which the dogs were kept.
There must be an increase in the dog licence fee. The hon. Member for Newark suggested a figure of £10, but


I believe that £5 would be more appropriate. There should be exceptions for those categories of people who rely heavily on a dog—the blind who need a dog as an aid to sight and the elderly who depend on a dog as a companion. I hope that the Government, in looking seriously at this problem, will come up with a licence system providing protection not only for the rest of the public who do not own dogs but for dogs themselves. That is why some of the money raised from an increased dog licence fee must be put back into the community, offering improved facilities for those who have dogs and those who do not. That would enable people to enjoy our parks and open spaces without having the problems that are readily apparent in any municipal park or open area.
It is a disgrace that we have allowed this system to continue for so long unamended, with no one prepared to do anything about the problem. We should do certain things immediately. Pet shops should be more strictly licensed. If a licence is to mean anything, someone must apply and pay for it in advance of buying the dog. It should be illegal for a pet shop to sell a dog without having obtained a licence. A pet shop should not be permitted to sell a dog to anyone under 16. There should be a national neutering and spaying campaign in co-operation with many of the animal societies, many of which wholeheartedly support that approach.
It is interesting to note that an answer to one question revealed that it is estimated that there are 200,000 stray dogs. Some people felt that that was a conservative estimate and that the figure approached 1 million. It is horrifying to think that there is such a number of stray dogs or dogs that are not properly cared for. Anyone who genuinely cares about animal welfare should be worried about the way in which animals are turned on to the streets and left there.
My city has tried desperately to come to grips with the problem. It is sad that Portsmouth was not quoted in the evidence. The Select Committee asked whether dogs ran in packs. Parks and many of the open spaces surrounding the city were repeatedly inundated with packs of dogs terrorising the community. The introduction of a dog warden was not an effective measure, but at least it went some way towards alleviating the problem. In its wisdom the council decided to spend about £20,000 on an experiment to do something about proper policing of the parks to ensure that dogs were looked after properly by their owners, and that dogs which did not have someone responsible for their welfare at the time of entering a park were collected by the dog warden.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such expenditure by Portsmouth, which is in danger of potential rate capping by the Government, would be regarded by the Government as profligate and wasteful and that the authority might incur penalties because of its sensible steps?

Mr. Hancock: I agree with that statement, but we would be barking up the wrong tree if we did not believe that the Government would take this matter seriously. The problems of rate capping and dog licensing concern us all. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on not only Portsmouth but other local authorities that are threatened by the same procedure.
It is always a shame that dogs get a bad name when their owners walk away scot free, unabashed about the nuisance that has been caused. Those hon. Members who have received the report on dogs from the British Veterinary Association must be sympathetic to its point about licensing. I hope that the responsible Minister will take on board many of the association's points, which I genuinely believe go a long way towards allaying the fears of many hon. Members and the community generally.
The experiment in Portsmouth will last for six months and will cost the local authority £20,000. Many measures before the council were in danger of being considered lavish or being done for the wrong reason. The plan to conduct an experiment was one of the few measures that was unopposed in the city council. It was a completely non-political idea. Everyone felt that it was a valiant attempt to do something about a difficult problem.
I hope that the Government will come to grips with the problem of dog licensing. I hope also that the Government will not take steps for the reasons that were given to the Select Committee. The Select Committee asked why licence fees were collected — for revenue or as a licensing procedure. In answering the question, the officials fished around for what to say. In the end, reluctantly they said that the licence fee was collected to provide revenue. Having read the report of the proceedings, I feel that the officials would have liked to say that they hoped to do a service for the community which, sadly, the present licensing fee does not do.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Newark, myself and other hon. Members. I draw his attention especially to the letter from the British Veterinary Association which spells out the issues and gives us an opportunity to introduce a realistic licence fee, with obvious exceptions to guard those who cannot afford the fee or need a dog for the reasons that I have established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take on board also the Government's ability to help local authorities to provide better facilities for the dog-owning population. It would be stupid of all of us if we did not recognise that far too many animals are not cared for. That is gross irresponsibility by owners who neglect animals.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about the problems of housing. It is difficult for me as a Member who has just been elected not to use this opportunity to speak about my constituency. Only yesterday the housing investment programme for Portsmouth was discussed. It is a laudable programme, offering hope and a chance for housing measures to be taken. It offers nowhere near enough, and that is always the case. The increasing housing waiting lists in Portsmouth are apparent for anyone to see, and it must be the same in every large city. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw a comparison between the problems in Liverpool and those elsewhere.
The underlying threat running through the discussions in Portsmouth this year and last was the axe hanging over the housing investment programme and the risk that the Government would step in and cut expenditure at a time when local authorities are doing their utmost to support their communities.
Perhaps the key function of a local authority is to provide a decent environment and decent homes for people to live in. Housing investment programmes try to deal with that. Regrettably, however, there is the threat of


expenditure being cut off. For owner-occupiers, the threat to improvement grants will mean ever-increasing delays and in some instances no hope of ever improving very old houses. A moratorium or a cut in the housing investment programme will leave those on long waiting lists equally without hope and paying very high rents to Rachman-style landlords.
I urge all Conservative Members who have any influence with the Government to state clearly that housing investment programmes must be honoured. The Government should make it clear that they have no intention, this year or next, of cutting even further into an area of provision that has already been savaged beyond belief.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the highways and byways of his constituency but take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who opened for the Opposition on this matter.
First, however, I believe that the House should express its gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for securing a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, on which I had the privilege to serve in the last Parliament. One of the most frustrating aspects of serving on that Committee was that the House never seemed to debate its reports.
I wish to deal briefly with Class VIII Vote 5 relating to the Audit Commission, Class VII Vote 1 relating to improvements in investment and, if time permits, Class VIII Vote 1 on assistance for the construction industry.
In March this year, the Audit Commission published a report on council housing and rent arrears which showed that local authorities were owed £250 million in short-term, medium-term and long-term rent arrears. I wish that the House could find time to debate that report, too, and draw attention to the authorities guilty of mismanaging their housing stock and failing to collect rental income which could be recycled to provide the improvements and new homes to which the hon. Member for Walton referred. Certainly I hope that the Select Committee will take that matter on board.
The Government have every reason to be proud of their record on home improvements. The hon. Member for Walton failed to mention the Labour Government's record. In the first four years of the Conservative Administration, renovations exceeded 160,000 per year —30 per cent. more than the average in the last four years of the Labour Government. The 90 per cent. repairs grant introduced in the 1982 Budget proved almost too great a success and in 1983 renovations reached an all-time high of 380,000. As a result of that policy, significant progress has been made in reducing the number of dwellings lacking basic amenities such as hot water, bathrooms and inside sanitation. In 1981, there were 900,000 such properties. The hon. Member for Walton failed to inform the House that in 1976, when I believe that he was a Minister, the number of houses lacking those basic amenities was 1·5 million. There is, however, still room for improvement and I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction here today, as he has done so much in travelling around the

country encouraging local authorities and building contractors to take up the initiatives introduced by the Government.
Unfortunately, the problem of disrepair is worsening. More than 1 million homes are now in a serious state of disrepair compared with 860,000 in 1976. The English house condition survey of 1981 contains disturbing evidence suggesting that grants are not always directed to the people or properties most genuinely in need of them. That is why I believe that the Government's initiative in increasing improvement grants to 90 per cent. was in some ways counter-productive in that, sadly, some of the money seems to have fallen into the wrong hands. The survey states:
the worst stratum is increasingly the province of long-term residents with limited economic resources or opportunities…It seems likely that the rate of turnover of lower quality housing is decreasing and, if inducements fail in motivating existing residents, the result will be less action on the worst housing, whilst the better condition stock will continue to receive a disproportionately large share of expenditure in relation to its need".
Morever, when grant-aided work is carried out, lack of proper supervision and, sadly, the prevalence of cowboy operators mean that the job done often does not represent the best possible value for money.
All those problems must be tackled if we are to make serious inroads into the problem of housing decay. I trust that the Minister agrees that the first priority must be to reiterate the Government's commitment to tackle the problem and to back that commitment with an adequate, stable, continuous and regular flow of funds. Nothing is more costly and disruptive than the stop-go policies pursued by Governments in the past. Improvement policy requires long-term initiatives and a long-term commitment by the Government that the problem will remain a major priority.
It is not necessarily the province of local councils to provide homes. I believe that the nation's housing problem can be solved through a partnership between the public sector and the private sector—between local authorities, building societies, building contractors, housing associations, trusts, and so on. Grants should be paid only against invoices and local authorities should be encouraged to operate lists of approved contractors so that householders may have some confidence in their choice of builder and some sanction against poor workmanship. The Government should also take action to concentrate expenditure on the people and properties most genuinely in need. That can be achieved only if the grant applications system is simplified and stripped of inordinate bureaucratic delay and complicated form-filling.
Local authorities should be encouraged to make far greater use of the innovative techniques of improvement pioneered by some authorities — techniques such as enveloping, block grants, housing improvement zones and so on. Some of the most imaginative and successful schemes rely on a partnership beween local authorities, residents, private sector building contractors, and so on. That is the way to reverse the decay of our housing stock. Some of these schemes may be more costly to operate than one-off improvement schemes, but the gains in reliable workmanship and the renovation of whole areas of needy housing instead of the pepperpot approach of one-off improvement grants more than justify the additional cost.
The problem of housing decay is daunting. The Government have taken the right step to stop the rot, but


far more needs to be done to garner existing funds identified in the Estimates so as to ensure that more properties are properly improved and thus halve the spiral of decay.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I begin by addressing a few remarks to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It is a little sad that he did not reflect on the difficulties faced by some council tenants when they get into rent arrears. No doubt he has the possibility of getting an overdraft from the bank when he wants it. He is probably able to overcome difficulties by using plastic money. He should remember, however, that many council tenants do not have the opportunity to borrow money. It is very tempting for them to get a week or two behind with their rent. Then, if they are faced with unemployment or some other problem, they get into difficulties that they cannot easily overcome. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that many people end up in debt in circumstances for which it would be hard for us to blame them.
In the past 15 months many people have been told that they are in debt because of the administration of the new housing benefit system. It is very easy for housing authorities to say that they have processed applications in, say, three or four months and that applicants will receive financial help. They then say that applicants will not actually receive anything, because they are three months in arrears with their rent. We must consider those problems too.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the allocation of money for home improvements. I am especially concerned about the two local authorities covering my constituency—Tameside and Stockport. I know that many people are suffering because of the reduction in the amount of money available to those local authorities for home improvements. In Tameside especially, there are numerous examples of most of the house-owners in a street taking advantage of the improvement grants, but of one or two house-owners not doing so. Clearly, to make the investment by the community in the first phase of the grants beneficial, the remaining one or two houses in those streets should be improved as well.
However, when those house-owners apply for an improvement grant, they find that they will receive less financial help and it may not be possible for them to proceed with the work. In many cases they will not be given money. That causes me considerable concern. In many cases we shall waste the effort that has been put into improving the houses, or even the first set of houses in a terrace, if we cannot complete the process.
There are people in Stockport whose houses desperately need work done to them. Their owners are in considerable difficulty. I know one old lady who has been Informed by her insurance company that it can no longer consider insuring her roof because it is in such a bad state. She has been putting off her application for a grant for the past three years because she is frightened of the upset and upheaval to her house. She has been convinced that she must have some work done to get the roof put right and have work done to prevent the damp penetration into the

plaster in the lower rooms. She went to the council, but it said, "Sorry, there is not the money because the Government have cut back the amount available."
I plead with the Government to examine the amount of money available in the housing investment programme that local authorities can use for home improvements. I ask them to consider particularly the amount of money that is available for Tameside and Stockport. I remind the Minister that he received a deputation only a few months ago from other hon. Members from the Stockport area, who passed upon him the problems of that area. Stockport's problems and those of Tameside are fairly typical of those of many local authorities in the north-west.
I also note that the Estimates include reference to the amount of money available to the Nature Conservancy for it to spend on the countryside. We heard yesterday in the House of the discussions about Halvergate. The strategy that the Government set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act is not working because they are not prepared to put up the money to make the legislation work. Many of us argued when that legislation went through the House that the spirit of the legislation would not be followed unless the Government provided enough money. Some of us offered alternatives, which did not involve bribing farmers to do what they should do anyway. The Government said that that was unnecessary and, with a little encouragement and a small amount of money being made available, they could achieve the right ends. They have not achieved those ends. That has been clearly demonstrated in the past month by the position in Halvergate. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Estimates and to tell us how much money will be available for the rest of this year to ensure that we do not have another scandal such as that at Halvergate.
My main emphasis is on the issue that was raised originally by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir. H. Rossi)—dog licences. That is a clear example of an administrative disgrace and of political cowardice. I hope that we shall give the Government sufficient encouragement in the debate to get on and do something about the problem now. I make a particular plea to Ministers. If the Government are approaching an election, it is tempting to do nothing about dog licences. I do not say that because I believe that anyone would turn his dogs on the Minister as he came up the path to knock on the door during canvassing, but because If the licence fee is increased just before an election people will not appreciate the impact of the new licence fee. They will not have had time to see the benefits that most hon. Members would argue should come from a proper dog warden service. If the Minister dealt with the problem now there might be resentment in the next month or two while the new licence and enforcement procedure were introduced. But I suggest that there would be two or more years afterwards in which people would see the benefits of a proper dog warden service. By the time the election came the dog licence would no longer be an issue. It is important for us to do something now.
Britain is supposed to be a nation of dog lovers, but I suspect that we are really a nation of dog neglecters. It appalls me to see the problems created by uncaring dog owners. I realise that some people would argue that to put up the licence fee would penalise those who care and are concerned for their dogs, and would do little for those who neglect dogs and show little concern for them. I believe


that most people who care about their dogs would pay the licence fee willingly if they thought that it would reduce the great suffering that people inflict on dogs.
It is most important to stop somebody acquiring a dog if he is likely to neglect it. Sadly, the largest group that acquire dogs and then neglect them is children. We all know the way in which the young become enthused with their new toys, which last for perhaps seven or eight days and then lie in a cupboard or a corner and are often neglected for long periods. The trouble is that a pet cannot be treated in that way. It must be cared for and its owner must show concern for it. The child must continue to be concerned for the dog after seven or eight days. The pet must go on attracting the care and attention of children for long periods.
It is difficult for a parent to resist pressures from the children to take on ownership of a pet. It is easy, if a child wants to buy a pet from a pet shop, for a parent to say that the child must save up. If the child does not maintain his enthusiasm and ends up spending his money on something else, the pet is never bought. Too often, a dog is acquired from the boy or girl down the road because there is a set of puppies in a particular household and the child thinks that the puppies are very attractive. He is told that he can have one of them. The parent can really say nothing other than that the child can have the dog.
It would be very helpful if parents could tell their children that dog ownership is expensive. First, one has to save up for the licence. Many people forget that it is quite expensive to keep a dog properly, especially in urban areas.
We must convince youngsters to stop and think before taking on the ownership of a dog. They must also recognise that it is expensive to own a dog. If we make it a little more expensive by raising the licence fee, and ensure that that licence is obtained before someone takes on a dog, that may stop children and parents from being pressurised into ownership without first having worked out the full consequences both for themselves and their neighbours.
People have highlighted the problem of dogs for the past 10 years, but the Government have offered no help. Time and time again those working in casualty departments have told me about the number of people suffering from dog bites with whom they must deal. The bites may not be serious, but they cause youngsters and adults considerable distress. It is necessary to give injections and other treatment, which all costs money.
The disease carried by dog dirt has been often mentioned in the House. It is very unpleasant when a youngster comes into the house, having walked along a pavement, with dog excreta on his shoes. I vividly remember one of my constituents telling me that when he slid into the corner of the rugby pitch to make his try, he found that having put down the ball he had than to remove dog dirt from his hair. He was bitter that someone obviously regularly exercised his dog on the rugby pitch, with no thought for the consequences. As he said, the person probably used the rugby pitch because he did not want to exercise the dog in his garden because of the problems that might cause.
Dogs cause road accidents. They run on to the road and drivers automatically brake, irrespective of the fact that another driver may run into their car or that the car may swerve to the side of the road, perhaps hurting someone other than the dog.
During the past eight years, I have been concerned about sheep worrying. Anyone seeing a field of sheep being worried by a dog or pack of dogs, and witnessing their agony as they run around and around, would be appalled. Not only the sheep are attacked, however. In many urban fringes the dogs attack cattle, ponies and other animals. For a number of years hon. Members asked a series of parliamentary questions about the number of animals killed or seriously injured by dogs. What did the Government do? They decided to help the problem by stopping collecting information. We now have no up-to-date information available. The evidence I have from the National Farmers Union and other groups is that the problem is as bad now as it was then. We must take action to reduce that problem, especially sheep worrying. We must control the number of stray dog packs that roam around the Countryside and urban fringes.
I do not want to discuss the problem of rabies, but most people are frightened of the consequences for human beings. There could also be horrific consequences for wildlife if that disease crossed the Channel. Animals would suffer great misery and many would have to be destroyed.
The Minister should consider the number of dogs that we destroy each day in this country. The last figure available to me was 200 a day. If the Minister lined up 200 dogs at St. Stephen's entrance and told people that that was the number being destroyed each day, there would be overwhelming pressure for action. No one wants to destroy that many dogs, yet it happens.
We must increase the licence fee—certainly to £5, but possibly to £10. When the working party reported in 1976–77 it said that an increase to £5 would mean that it would not need to be raised again for many years. It is important that we get the fee right. Firm advice must be given to local authorities to spend the money from those fees on a warden service. It is important that the dogs are licensed as soon as they change ownership and that a tag is put on the collar so that the dog can be identified from some distance away as being licensed.
There is the will both in the House and in the country for the Government to take on the difficult task, raise the licence fee and ensure that there is an effective dog warden service to reduce the many nuisances to which I have referred. We must also educate people to ensure that we are genuinely a nation of dog lovers and not a nation of dog neglecters.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that the Front Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye at 9.25 pm. The debate must conclude at 10 pm. Therefore, we have about 40 minutes remaining with six hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. The arithmetic will be obvious.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wish to say how pleased I am to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who has been a leading campaigner in this area and has had many sensible things to say on the subject over a significant period. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has given the House an


opportunity to look again at the issues of dogs, dog control and dog licences. We are currently confronted with a nonsense—a licence that costs four times as much to raise as it raises, which is absolutely stupid, and the act of omission in obtaining a dog licence that is probably as great as, if not greater than, the act of commission.
We must be wary of the siren voices that suggest that we should get rid of the dog licence altogether. We have a real and growing problem of dog control. It is not only a real and growing problem; it is well recognised, especially by the House. When we last had the opportunity to debate the subject there was a large majority of three and a half to one in favour of introducing sensible measures in that area. We also know that the National Farmers Union, for obvious reasons, is in favour of retaining the dog licence. It provides some system of tracing the marauding dogs that cause so much harm and damage to livestock. Some 10,000 farm animals are savaged each year, two thirds of which subsequently die.
We have heard from the British Veterinary Association how it believes that the retention of the dog licence system would help to provide a proper legal framework and system for the control of dogs. We have heard that rabid dogs are growling at us from the other side of the Channel and we must beware very much in case some of them come across to join us. Although some may say that we should do away with the licence system, I think that that would be dangerous.
As has been said in the debate, dogs are man's best friends. They bring a great deal of pleasure and comfort if cared for and looked after responsibly. But, sadly, the puppy bought at Christmas — that beautiful gorgeous puppy—for the child of the family soon becomes the unwanted stray, the latchkey dog that is allowed to roam the streets and cause problems for so many others. Many problems have been mentioned — for example, the unfortunate rugby player, the yapping dog in the house next door and the marauding packs.
There are other problems. When I was canvassing in my constituency recently I met three elderly people who dared not come to their doors because people in the locality left their dogs out during the day when they went to work, and if they came to the door a great dog would bound up to them. They were terrified. We must devise a system to control such problems.
I have suggested previously — I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about this when he replies — that as the problem is different in different parts of the country local people may wish to deal with the problem differently, and instead of a great central system, which would involve additional bureaucracy and tax, we should, within guidelines, let each local authority decide on its own system and dog licence fee. The money so raised should be spent on the control and welfare of dogs.
Many hon. Members have spoken about cruelty to dogs, of dogs which have been loved and left, and about neglected and suffering dogs. If we had a system of dog wardens paid for by local authorities from money raised through the licence—not through Parliament, additional taxation, or through additional burdens on local authorities, which they cannot fund—we could control the dog nuisance and the owner who did not look after the dog, and we could provide advice, assistance and education to prevent much of the suffering.
Many dog lovers would gladly contribute to such a system. I have been involved in this subject for some time and I have received much correspondence from dog lovers. The overwhelming number of them have said, "Go ahead, Mr. Marlow. Push it. We would be happy to spend more on our licence if dogs were properly looked after and if there were a proper system for dogs."
My hon. Friend has taken a sympathetic interest in the subject, and I regret what Opposition Members have said. He understands the subject well and would like to do something about it. He should be bold and brave, and grasp the bone. He will find that there is overwhelming support, especially from the dog loving public, to move in the direction suggested by many hon. Members.

Mr. Chris Smith: I am pleased that the Government made time for this debate on the Estimates of the Department of the Environment and on the Select Committee's report. The extremely important items of expenditure which come under the heading in the Estimates for the Department of the Environment too rarely succeed in getting an airing. Although I fully accept the importance of the issue concerning dog licences, recognise the valuable work done by dog wardens who are employed by the borough of Islington, and endorse the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I wish to deal with other items in the Estimates. They relate to the expenditure of the Housing Corporation in support of housing associations.
The Select Committee report draws attention to that item of expenditure. Many important matters must be raised. As with local authorities, though less severely in the case of the Housing Corporation, the amount of investment which housing associations can make in new and renovated houses has been substantially reduced during the past four years. It is said that the cutback in housing investment, which has marked the Government's terms of office, has affected housing associations, albeit less, in the same way as local authorities.
I shall make three points relating to the funding of housing associations and to the Estimates. First, the way in which the funding of housing association grant schemes operates, the year-to-year mechanism which is used for supplying the Housing Corporation with sufficient funds, and the way in which allocations are made to the corporation and to individual housing associations, are still based too much on an ad hoc year-by-year arrangement. The Committee examined those items and decided not to make a judgment on the matter until after the full review. Will the Government consider different ways of operating the housing grant funding mechanism?/
It would be more sensible to operate the mechanism in the same sort of way that local authorities operate—that is, money is made available to the Housing Corporation, and through it to housing associations, which are then told to go and spend it according to their priorities and the strategic housing plans that local authorities draw up for their areas. That would be more sensible than the scheme-by-scheme operation. It involves too much double scrutiny by the Housing Corporation and the Department of the Environment, and enormous fluctuations in funding available to the Housing Corporation and to individual


associations on the year-by-year basis. I appeal to the Government carefully and thoroughly to consider the possibilities of changing the funding mechanism.
Secondly, in evidence presented to the Select Committee, Department of the Environment officials demonstrated clearly—this is on pages 18 and 19 of the back notes to the report—that there was a surge in expenditure relating to the 1982–83 increase in approvals for new schemes through the Housing Corporation given at that time. The point which worried me when we interviewed the officials, and which still worries me, is that that surge in expenditure may not, because of the long-term nature of housing project expenditure, come through fully into Government cash spending until the next financial year.
If a substantial amount of that surge in expenditure will arise in the 1985–86 financial year, we have the right to remind the Government of that fact, and ask them whether they intend to make provision for that when they come to consider the Estimates for the next financial year. In particular, will they ensure that sufficient funds are made available to the Housing Corporation so that new projects can be undertaken at least at existing levels when we come to the expectations for the next year and the amount of money that is made available to the Housing Corporation? Committed expenditure following through from this year or last into next year can carve an enormous slice from the Housing Corporation budget. I am especially interested in what is left for new schemes.
If the Government were minded, as I sincerely hope that they are not, to introduce a moratorium later in the current financial year on capital spending and on the start of new construction work when the schemes reach tender stage, and if they were minded to impose that upon the housing association movement, they are building in yet more expectation for the next financial year, which may well cut still further into the amount of money available for new schemes. I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Government, if not now at some time during the course of the next few months, that they intend the number of new schemes undertaken by the housing association movement to be at least the same next year as they are this year.
The Select Committee dealt with the sum of £350,000, which appeared to have been allocated to cover sites that has been acquired by housing associations but had, subsequently, under Government instruction to be sold. That sum — small in comparison with the overall Estimates with which we are dealing but, nonetheless, a significant figure—had been incurred, apparently, as a loss on sites that had had to be sold. The Select Committee recommends that in future when such sales and disposals are contemplated more account should be taken of whether they are likely to incur a loss to the public purse. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation on board.
In those three specific ways, I hope that over the course of the next few months the Government will study the expenditure of the Housing Corporation, the way in which the valuable work done by housing associations is funded, and the overall level of that funding. Just as with local authorities, it is inadequate at present and the number of desperately needed homes which could be provided and which are not being provided is scandalous. I hope that when the Government consider next year's Estimates they will also take that point on board.
Hope springs eternal. I somehow doubt whether the Government will be moved by such a plea but, nonetheless, I hope that they may just for once consider it, and the homeless and badly housed people who could be helped by such expenditure.

Sir Michael Shaw: I shall speak on the subject of dog licences because I am one of the only two remaining members of the Public Accounts Committee that considered the matter in 1982. It is a good, if small, example of the way that Select Committees can work together. I support the general feelings that have been expressed by members of the Select Committee when considering the matter, but we were not considering the danger to animals in the countryside, to old people in urban areas and the messes in residential areas; we were considering the matter from the financial point of view.
When considering the subject, we went back into history and discovered the long lineage of the tax on dogs and the fact that the present licence fee had been fixed long ago; that it was originally established to earn money for the nation; that that revenue had been put to local authority use; and, now, that it was costing the country money.
Restricting ourselves to the value-for-money exercise, we questioned representatives from the Departments to try to find out the purpose of the licence. I am afraid that the answers left us far from satisfied with the present system. They said that it was a revenue exercise and then admitted that there was no revenue. When it was put to them that there would appear to be other reasons, they were coy about what those other reasons might be. We therefore decided that something ought to be done by the Government and we accordingly made a recommendation.
We said:
The present arrangements serve no useful national purpose; and both DOE and the Treasury recognised their absurdity. From the taxpayer's standpoint, the obvious immediate action needed is to suspend the present arrangements temporarily until a policy decision becomes possible.
It is not that we oppose control, as I believe that many of us privately believe that dogs need to be kept under control. There is a responsibility attached to keeping dogs. If the Government are not prepared to make up their mind and produce some realistic and self-financing system, they should in the meantime scrap the licence. At the end of our debate, I put a question to the Treasury representative. I told him that there was an expression, "Let sleeping dogs lie" and asked:
do I understand that the Treasury believe that £4 million a year is an unacceptable price to pay for that?
The reply was:
No, the Treasury does not regard the £4 million a year as an acceptable price to pay.
If the Treasury does not accept it, why is it not putting pressure on Ministers to do something about it and to introduce a realistic policy that would save money and safeguard owners of dogs and people who suffer as a result of dogs not being kept under control? In this small way, the Committee of Public Accounts has assisted the work of the Select Committee. I hope that, in many wider respects, that assistance and co-operation will continue.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall try to be brief as we are having a wide-ranging debate and I am especially interested in dog licences and game licences. I believe that


the Minister will appreciate a brief reference to the Nature Conservancy Council and the need to accord a much higher priority to it than the proposed expenditure of £15·5 million, which is not enough to serve the essential purposes of British conservation. As we are to debate a private Member's Bill of enormous relevance on Friday, I trust that if the Minister cannot find the money he can at least guarantee the Government's good will.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, uttered a call for boldness. I suggest that the Minister applies that boldness to the game licence. I am astonished that no Conservative Member, apart from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), referred to this matter. However, if the Minister obtained the figures from the Box he would ascertain that extravagance on the game licence greatly exceeds that on dogs.
The licence is a feudal residue. It was introduced in 1831 as a means of changing the arrangements to prevent the masses from taking wild animals and game. Before that date, people could not take game unless they owned a certain amount of property. They had to be 40-shilling freeholders in the 14th century and £150 long leaseholders in the 17th century. However, in 1831, with the prospect of greater prosperity and more people qualifying, it was decided to scrap the property qualification and to introduce a licence or, as it was originally called, a certificate, the fee for which was pitched well above the purchasing power of most people.
The system of game licensing has virtually fallen into disuse. Many people probably do not know that it exists and many others conveniently forget about it. Given the enormous change in recent years in the Conservative party, I doubt whether many Conservative Members have ever even thought about it. Indeed, that reference to change is very relevant, because earlier this week a Conservative Member referred to grouse as a migratory species. It is astonishing that Conservative Members do not understand the wildlife that they have for generations slaughtered. These days people have to come to Opposition Members for information on wildlife. Only my hon. Friends seem to be aware of the appalling brick that was dropped on that occasion.
The approach to game, shooting and field sports needs to be changed and should concentrate on conservation and competence instead of an individual's capacity to pay. I could go on at great length on that point, and I trust that the Minister would allow me to do so, since his hon. Friends failed to refer to the game licence. However, as hon. Members have said, that licence is perhaps even more absurd than the dog licence. The Minister will have to consider the advice that he has been given on dog licences, because the situation is plainly absurd. In doing so, I hope that he will recognise the valuable point made by a Mr. Read in a debate in the House in 1867. I believe that the fee was then fixed at five shillings. He urged that dog licences should be taken out before the dog is six months old.
I make that point, because I believe that the greatest problem is impulse buying. I used to breed show dogs, and that is probably why I am speaking now. A long time ago, before I became completely involved in politics, I was

much involved in dog fancying. Many dog fanciers recognise that too many people obtain puppies on a whim, and that it is they who tend to cause the trouble.
Responsible dog owners—and that usually includes all those involved in breeding and showing, who are unlikely to let their valuable animals run about and cause a nuisance—should not have to pay a very large fee for every dog that they own or hold. Those who do not cause a problem should not have to foot the bill for the problems that irresponsibility causes. The Minister should be wary of accepting the advice of some of his hon. Friends, who seemed to be so anxious to follow every prevailing fashion as to deter people from owning dogs.
Many of us accept that the present fee is absurd and that changes in the regulations are necessary; but we must not create a situation in which poor people or lonely elderly people are denied the companionship and affection of a dog. We must try to ensure that we encourage responsibility rather that deter dog ownership. I trust that the Minister will bear that in mind. Clearly we need to ensure that those responsible for the problems are not given any encouragement.
People may have been evading the licence fee for years. There was considerable concern about dog licence evasion in the early part of the 19th century following Pitt's introduction of the licence in the late 18th century. However, we would not want to raise the licence fee to the real level found in William Pitt's or Gladstone's day and then find that people are prevented from owning dogs as a result.
I think that I have addressed the House for long enough, but I trust that the Minister will accept the advice that he has been given. I hope that he is bold, but he also needs to be intelligent.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I rise to ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that Class VIII Vote 1 does not include one penny for the fluoridation of the public water supply. I fear that the words telling us that the Vote covers grants to public bodies towards capital expenditure on water services or grants to local authorities for a number of local environmental services may cover just the evil that I have to spend so much of my time trying to fight. Surely in a free society the compulsory mass medication of the water supply, forcing people who do not want it, who do not need it, who cannot possibly benefit by it and who are opposed to it, to drink water polluted by this industrial effluent, is an evil.
What on earth are a Conservative Government, committed to the freedom of the individual and the freedom of choice, doing permitting—nay, encouraging —the mass medication of our drinking water? Even if it were proven beyond any doubt that fluoridation is completely safe, which it never has been or ever could be in the face of massive evidence that it triggers cancer and other physical afflictions, it would still be an affront to a free society to force it on people. Even if it were proven beyond any doubt that it was wholly beneficial for teeth, which it has never been and never could be in the face of evidence that it causes mottling and discoloration at quite low doses, it is still a cause for shame that those who have no wish to be mass medicated have to be subjected to it. Those who want fluoridation could easily buy fluoridated toothpaste in the shops.
This is not the time to go into the manifest reasons why fluoridation is undesirable and unacceptable, but my hon. Friend ought to be reminded of three points about fluoridation. First, it is unlawful. It has been found to be so by the Court of Session in Scotland. The water authorities in England and Wales fluoridate only because the Government indemnify them against successful legal action. There is a move afoot to change the law and that move could bring the Government into discredit with a large number of people who support them throughout the country.
Secondly, fluoridation is undemocratic and intensely contrary to people's wishes. Unelected water authorities and unelected regional health authorities substitute, with flagrant contempt for the wishes of ordinary people, their views about what is best for them in place of the views of elected authorities. All over the country, district, county and parish councils have overwhelmingly voted against fluoridation, yet the water authorities have gone on doing it. Only this week I have received letters of support from the metropolitan borough of Calderdale and the Taunton Deane borough council, both of which are organisations to which the people are democratically elected, and they resent the fact that the Government have given to unelected authorities the right to decide whether there shall be fluoridated water.
The Government must take on board their responsibility in this matter. They cannot just shrug off that responsibility with the explanation that they are making fluoridation available and that it is up to local authorities to decide. What are the local authorities? Local authorities to everyone are the democratically elected local authorities, not the water authorities and not the regional health authorities, which are not democratically elected and which flout the views of the democratically elected authorities.
There are already 93 signatories to early-day motion 20 opposed to fluoridation and even as I speak I am hopeful that there may be 94. My hon. Friend must know also that a large number of Ministers are privately opposed to it. I warn him that any attempt to introduce a Bill to make fluoridation lawful will not slip through the House without obstruction in the middle of the night. It will be opposed. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will seek to divide the House at whatever hour the vote is called.
Thirdly, I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that hitherto what has moved Governments to support fluoridation is the belief that the respectable responsible medical authorities in Britain are wholeheartedly behind it. That is no longer so. Day by day, fluoridation is being opposed by responsible medical bodies throughout the world and by responsible medical practitioners. The message is getting across that it is unethical to prescribe medicines for people one does not know and about whose needs one has no idea.
The message is getting across that in the fluoridated United States there are not fewer dentists but more. The argument that as there has been a reduction in the dental decay of children's teeth in places such as Birmingham since fluoridation, that must have been caused by fluoridation is false, unscientific and contrary to much of the evidence. If it were true, it would be difficult to explain why similar reductions in dental caries are taking place in areas such as the Isle of Wight, which is not fluoridated, and in fluoride-free Bristol, where 62 per cent. Of

five-year-olds had no tooth decay in 1983, while fewer than 58 per cent. of children in Gwynedd, which is fluoridated, were free from dental decay.
The message is getting across that to talk of an optimum level of 1 part per million as being safe in drinking water is to ignore the fact that there is fluoride in the air we breathe, in the processed food we eat and in the tea we drink. The cumulative increase of fluoride over the years is probably having strong adverse effects on people, particularly the elderly. In addition, we still do not know what causes rheumatism and other illnesses.
One leading medical authority who has changed his mind about fluoridation is Mr. John Colquhoun, who was, until his recent retirement, the principal dental officer of Auckland in New Zealand. He worked in the health department for 35 years and is the president of the New Zealand Society of Dentistry for Children. In 1980, he was chosen to carry out a worldwide research study on fluoridation and he produced a paper saying that there is evidence that there is no dental benefit related to water fluoridation, but there is evidence of chronic fluoride intoxication.
That is consistent with the findings of two or three law courts in America, of the commission in Quebec and of a number of medical authorities throughout the world. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to convey to the Government the fact that the sway that the medical profession once held over the House and the Government to force fluoridation down our throats is no longer adequate. That control must slip away. The rights of individual citizens, claiming their freedom in a free society to make their own choices, must be paramount. I want an assurance that not one penny of this Vote will be used for the fluoridation of the public water supply.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is said that patience is a virtue and, having now been called to speak, I am delighted to recognise that that statement still holds good. I shall not follow the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), except to say that, as one of the signatories of his early-day motion, I agree with everything that he said.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made a valid point when he said that we are in a mess over dog licences. The pressure being put on the Government by this debate and by the reports from the Select Committee on the Environment and the Committee of Public Accounts show that the House speaks with one voice in saying that we are in a ridiculous situation and that the Department of the Environment can no longer ignore the problem.
Like the hon. Member for Wentworth, I have to declare an interest. I own two Cavalier King Charles spaniels.. I was delighted that the debate did not start till after 7 o'clock, because I normally rely on the business of the House allowing me to exercise and feed my dogs between 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
When I saw that the debate was taking place today, I wondered when my dog licences had expired. I regret to have to admit that I have broken the law. It was only after seeing that this debate was to take place that I went to the post office in the Central Lobby and paid my 75p—two dogs require two 37½p licences.
Although I had been breaking the law—in common with many millions of fellow dog owners—I realised as I walked into the Post Office that I was doing the Treasury


a disservice, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said about dog owners saving the Treasury money by not having licences. It is ridiculous that the 37½p for a dog licence does not pay for processing the licence. We must resolve the present muddle in a way that does not penalise dog owners. Dogs provide companionship and friendship for many people.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that feeding a dog these days is an expensive business. It costs me about £4·50 a week to feed my two King Charles spaniels. That is about £200 a year. If I add £30 to £40 for veterinary fees and innoculations, being obliged to pay an additional £5 for a licence would not be unreasonable.
Because time is pressing, I shall not raise other matters to which I would have referred. I hope that the Minister accepts that dog lovers throughout the country expect action, as do those who have cause to worry about stray dogs.

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Briggs and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) because I must not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I know of his interest in spaniels at first hand because we appeared on Yorkshire Television together, and he was seen walking up the path with a spaniel under his arm.
I shall concentrate on the places where dogs are normally kept — in the home. We have had some important recent legislation affecting the home, including the Housing Defects Bill, and I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary in his place, because he has been concerned with that measure. There were some interesting exchanges in Committee on that Bill, but today I wish to concentrate on the cost to local authorities arising out of the buying and rejuvenation of defective property.
I fear that the Government have not taken fully into account the vast financial effect that these activities will have on local authorities. If authorities are to be obliged to purchase defective houses and pay for their rejuvenation, they should receive 100 per cent. grant for that expenditure.
In my constituency, which is a mining area, another problem will arise. Not only will the local authority have to buy back defective houses which were sold to people in the past, and perhaps pay for the rejuvenation of that property. There are a number of houses that used to belong to the National Coal Board and which were bought by former NCB tenants. Under the latest proposals, the authority, not having benefited from the capital receipts of that property, will nevertheless have to buy it back.
Local authorities, especially those in my area, will move into financial difficulties. Many of them are already facing those difficulties because of the Government's policies. If the Housing Defects Bill is enacted in its present form, I hope that the Government will closely monitor its effect. I hope, too, that they will tell us of that effect. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local government organisations have warned the Government of the possible financial effects of the Bill. If they find that the local government organisations are right and if they come to that realisation before the Bill is

enacted, I hope that they will introduce amendments to ensure that local authorities are compensated in full for the consequences of it. It is essential that we look after local authorities, and as it stands the Bill will place an additional burden upon them. I hope that the Government will take that factor into consideration.

Mr. John Fraser: This has been a mixed debate. Some hon. Members have addressed themselves to the uncaring attitude of some towards dogs and the welfare of animals generally. I shall return to the theme that was adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) by taking up his remarks about the Government's uncaring attitude towards and neglect of human beings and placing them in the context of the housing Estimates.
It is the Opposition's view that the moneys provided in the Estimates for housing purposes, whether for housing associations—a cut has been announced in the money to be made available to the Housing Corporation — for local authorities for their own building and renovation programmes or for owner-occupiers for repairs or the provision of new amenities, are grossly inadequate for the current year. There has been a cut of 60 per cent. in the moneys provided for housing benefit since the Government took office. The money that will be spent next year by the Government on housing subsidies and capital expenditure will be only 35 per cent. in real terms of housing expenditure for 1979–80. Those figures—I realise that sometimes figures are not absorbed —demonstrate a massive and growing housing crisis. That is why the Opposition are discontented with the moneys that the Government are providing this year.
There remains great suspicion that during the current financial year the Government will impose a moratorium on local government capital expenditure on housing. There are a number of reasons for that suspicion. First, local authorities were urged last year not to underspend. That being so, they may have slightly exceeded last year's spending limits. That overspending could be carried forward into the current year. Secondly, there remains the massive pressure that was built up by the 90 per cent. repair and improvement grants. There are probably several hundred thousand applications in the pipeline. The pressure created by the payment of grants could lead to overspending in some local government areas, which in turn could lead to a moratorium and cuts.
Thirdly, the imposition of VAT on house alterations could increase even further the commitments of local authorities which have agreed to give housing improvement grants. That in turn could put further pressure on the Government to introduce a moratorium.
Lastly, it appears that the Government may have underestimated the amount of money coming in from capital receipts from the sale of council houses. A large part of the £700 million for the housing investment programme for the current year is financed by the sale of council houses. The Government were banking pretty heavily on local authority tenants getting mortgages from building societies, and every time a local authority tenant chooses to get a mortgage from his local authority instead of going to a building society, there is a cut in the housing investment programme. That could intensify the pressure for a moratorium to be announced during the year.
The moneys are inadequate because of the risks to which ordinary members of the public are exposed, including the further atrophying of the building industry which could take place if the Government announced a moratorium. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) that the building industry is especially damaged by any Government's stop-start policies.

Mr. Heddle: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about local authorities having granted mortgages for the sale of council houses, will he use this opportunity to appeal to local authorities to refinance their mortgage book by encouraging people who have mortgages with them to refinance through building societies at significantly lower rates of interest and thus release the money that has been locked in mortgages for more beneficial purposes?

Mr. Fraser: I am in favour of anything that brings more money into new housing investment. I am sure that many local authorities would be only too happy to follow that course of action. However, one can understand the problem by examining the statistics of people buying council houses. The average age of people buying council houses is much higher than that of people buying private homes for owner-occupation. The average age is as high as 55, which means that building societies do not regard such people as being such a good risk as they would the average owner-occupier of 29 when they first buy. That is why the Government have got these things wrong.
I have an illustration of why the money provided for housing is inadequate. It arose out of a television programme about housing problems in London which was shown last night. It also illustrates how wasteful in the long term is the failure to invest in housing. In London there are 2,178 families in bed-and-breakfast hotel accommodation. That is costing the public — either London ratepayers or London taxpayers, or both—about £10 million a year. Money is being lost because local authorities are accommodating three times more families than three years ago in such accommodation. There is also the problem of the long-term damage being done to the health of these people and their children, which is almost immeasurable.
It is a scandal that the amount of money being provided for housing is such that over 2,000 families are living in accommodation that is described as "unfit for human habitation" and "prejudicial to health" and which involves people living in hotels with inadequate fire precautions. One of the people in the programme last night said that living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a homeless person was
worse than a prison sentence".
At least prisoners know how long their sentence is, but many homeless people have no idea when they will get a decent home.
This problem is exacerbated by the way in which some Conservative local authorities in London are misusing the national mobility scheme by pushing their homeless families into another part of London. It is interesting that many Conservative authorities have no people, or few people, living in hotel accommodation, because they are not allocating within their own authorities. They are simply pushing the homeless into areas such as Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark, which already have terrible housing problems.
Whichever test one applies to housing problems, the investment is inadequate. In the private sector. one third of a million houses lack amenities, and 500,000 have high repair costs of over £7,000. There must be more investment in that sector, or it will begin to fall apart. I suspect that much of it is beginning to fall apart already, as the pressure from the reduction in the provision of council accommodation to let continues because of inadequate housing investment programmes. More and more people on low incomes with inadequate resources to undertake owner-occupation are none the less being forced into the owner-occupied sector or are being forced to remain there because that part of the stock of privately owned housing will go the same way as the stock of privately rented accommodation which has been neglected because of too little investment.
By that test, far too little money is being invested. At the same time, local authority construction figures are continuing to fall, quarter after quarter, as the recent press releases from the Department of the Environment show. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke of the housing association sector, and again expenditure on that is falling. Indeed, the most recent Department of the Environment press release shows a further substantial cut. In 1983–84 the net funds for investment for the housing association movement were £608 million. They fell in 1983–84, and they have fallen again this year to £617 million, which is a very substantial drop. But even within that reduced total of expenditure for housing associations, as the press release shows, the obsession with the right to buy, as opposed to the provision of money for housing accommodation to let, involves a further cut of £6 million in the housing investment programme for housing associations during the current year.
As was said at the beginning of the debate, we censure the Government for the amount of money provided in the housing Estimates. We are staggering to a terrible housing crisis. The position gets worse year after year. In the long term, it will be a crisis not only for the homeless, for those on housing waiting lists, and for those who live in inadequate, damp and poorly repaired accommodation; it will be a crisis for the whole of society, and one that we shall regret. We make no apology for returning to the subject at every possible opportunity.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that it is a very good thing that we are having this debate at all, and that the House should be asserting its right to look at Supply in a proper way.
I shall of course attempt to respond to the general points that have been made on housing, and will report all the others to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has been here throughout much of the debate. But most of my remarks will be addressed to the report of the Select Committee, because we are developing a system whereby Estimates are examined by Select Committees in considerable detail, after which we have a debate on the Floor of the House. It is an admirable system and it would be a pity to waste the opportunity to deal with the matter in that way.
I can say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that I shall make no reference


to fluoridation. However, I listened to his speech with close attention, and I have no doubt that it will be deployed on other occasions.
I start with the vexed question of dog licensing, dealt with under Class VIII, Vote 5. There were a large number of speakers— led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) all took part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has been a major campaigner on the issue, as indeed has the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Perhaps the father of all campaigners on the issue has been my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. I understand that he is responsible for the new regime that now exists in Northern Ireland.
I entirely share the Select Committee's concern about the continuing and increasing cost to the Exchequer of dog licensing. I congratulate the Committee on bringing the matter to the attention of the House. As the report points out, the Committee of Public Accounts—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is a member — reported on the matter in the last Parliament, and the House is right to expect the Government to bring forward proposals. The fact that none has yet been advanced does not mean that the Government have not been seized of the importance of the matter. The unfortunate officials of my Department have had to be concerned with it. I imagine that there can for them be no more difficult task than having to stonewall while the Minister has not yet made up his mind, and to do so with courtesy under intense cross-examination. The officials did their job very well. It was not their fault that at that point Ministers had not come to conclusions.
I have an opportunity now to mention to the House some of the conclusions that we have reached. The report of the Committee of Public Accounts, and the report now before us, focus on the financial absurdity that the costs of issuing licences are now substantially greater than the revenue they produce. But the Government are faced with the fact that correction of that absurdity cannot be separated from a decision on policy towards dog control in general.
The Government recognise, as do many hon. Members —in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—that very great benefit derives from responsible dog ownership. Several hon. Members made that point. We must recognise the growing concern in the past decade or more about the genuinely serious problems caused by dogs that are not properly controlled and cared for. In 1974, the Labour Government set up a working party on dogs, which reported in 1976, recommending an increased licence fee to finance dog warden schemes. Successive Governments—it may have been the Chief Whips of successive Governments who do not always welcome this subject with the same enthusiasm as those of us who are concerned with this subject in other ways—did not manage to find the time to tackle these issues.
The present Government are clear that something must now be done to change the present arrangements. The

difficulty has been to decide between the competing solutions. As the House will perhaps realise, although there has been unanimity about a good deal of the debate, I suspect that it will be shortlived when our proposals come forward, because this is a matter about which people feel strongly and in contradictory directions. There is a severe dog war raging in my constituency about whether to allow dogs into a particular garden.
The Committee of Public Accounts recognised the complexity of the issues. It recommended that the present arrangements should be temporarily suspended until a substantive policy decision was possible. The Government replied that there was no provision for suspending licensing. Suspension would imply abolition and would require primary legislation. That would amount to a substantive policy decision rather than an interim measure.

Sir Hugh Rossi: It is intended some time this year to remove the halfpenny by regulation, but at the same time it is possible to reduce the fee to nil pence.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come to that point. Some people see the dog licence as an anachromism. Its original purpose was to raise revenue. It now raises negative revenue, which in some ways is a good principle for a tax but is not sensible in raising revenue. Other people feel equally strongly that abolition would signal a lessening of concern about the control and welfare of dogs. I am sure that that is wrong, but there is increasing worry about that aspect.
Another option—perhaps the simplest—is to increase revenue by simply increasing the licence fee. That would not require primary legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has pointed out, we have the powers to vary the licence fee. We could increase it or we could decrease it to zero. Dog licensing can no longer be seen merely as a means of raising general revenue. The question of revenue is important, but consideration must be given to the need for dog control measures. The Government are not persuaded, therefore, that a uniform national approach to licensing is appropriate.
The aim should be to take account of differing local circumstances while preserving the benefits of licensing. The Government believe that the best way forward lies in new legislation to replace the present national licensing system with a provision for local authorities to introduce their own licensing and registration arrangements, which they can tailor to local needs, the revenue raised being devoted to appropriate dog welfare and control activities.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I apologise to the House for not having been present for the earlier part of the debate. I am most disturbed at what my hon. Friend said. I warn him that, if any such powers were brought into effect, the anti-dog local authorities throughout the country would be given draconian powers. We have seen the draconian powers that have been granted through Northern Ireland regulations. My hon. Friend will face massive opposition. The best thing to do would be to increase fines to a level that would really penalise irresponsible dog owners and not give local authorities the chance to crucify dogs if they do not like them.

Mr. Waldegrave: If my hon. Friend had heard the earlier speeches, he would have heard good arguments set out against that case. He has demonstrated the reasons why


Governments have not come forward with proposals. It is not easy to achieve unanimity. No action on this matter will achieve unanimity. The Government therefore intend shortly to issue a consultation paper setting out the options and making detailed proposals for change on the basis I have described—a Green Paper with white edges. The issues are contentious, as has just been demonstrated. We are anxious that future arrangements should command as broad a measure of support as possible.

Sir Hugh Rossi: My hon. Friend refers to a further consultation paper. We had a working group paper in 1976 after a delay of two years. It is now 10 years since the whole operation began. Will he give an assurance that the consultation period will be short, because if next year's Estimates contain a similar provision for the Post Office he may find it more difficult to persuade the House to accept it?

Mr. Waldegrave: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I cannot guarantee that the legislation will be through by this time next year, but I guarantee that we shall have initiated action by then. We are anxious to bring the whole unhappy saga of the dog licence to a rational conclusion. I am sure that the House will be pleased that the Government have grasped the nettle and decided to do something about it and that we have resolved to settle an issue on which successive Administrations have felt unable to take action.
I wish to deal briefly with two specific points mentioned in the report. First, the Government are considering what action may be needed to deal with the consequences of the demonetisation of the halfpenny, a decision that could not sensibly be taken until the wider question of what to do about the licensing arrangements had been settled. Secondly, the report mentions the arrangements in Northern Ireland where a £5 licence fee was introduced in 1983. We certainly wish to learn from that experience, although it may be too soon to learn very much.
I well understand why the Select Committee wished to bring to the attention of the House the continuing cost to the Exchequer of the present dog licence arrangements. I also understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green put down his motion, but I hope that in the light of what I have said he will not wish to press it.

Mr. Marlow: Is my hon. Friend promising legislation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have made it clear that we are proceeding by means of a consultation paper with the intention of introducing legislation based on the local option scheme that I have described.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to game licences. I believe that there is a far better case for this licence, which is linked with the licence to deal in game and has a conservation aspect in attempting to control the taking of game and to prevent poaching. It is impossible to say exactly what it costs at present as the costs are linked with those of the dog licence, but revenue is about £200,000.
On housing subsidy, the Select Committee was rightly concerned that local authorities had over-claimed in 1982–83. The criticisms made by the Select Committee have led to a further tightening of the system, which had already been improved by the Department, and this has

reduced the overspend. As the overspend is clawed back in subsequent years this is a matter of administration rather than of any waste of cash in the end.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a number of sensible points about housing association grant. He referred to costs relating to site disposals. The report deals with those which followed cuts in the programme in 1976, but it is well accepted that in circumstances of that kind costs must be properly covered. I do not have time to respond fully to all the hon. Gentleman's points, but they were well taken and I will ensure that they are pursued.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other hon. Members on both sides attacked the Government's record on housing, but their solution is not that favoured by the Government. Some of the worst housing conditions to be seen, certainly in my constituency, derive from the ill-considered boom in council house building in the 1960s. One of the tragedies that we face is the rapid deterioration of those properties. I understand and respect the point made by the hon. Member for Walton and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) that money should go where it is most needed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was present for that part of the debate and reminded me that he was carrying out a review of the improvement grant system to ensure that the priorities were designed to put the money where it would do most good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire firmly reminded us, if there is any party political knockabout on this, our record in expansion and maintenance of that programme compared with that of the Labour Government is one of which my party can be proud.
I have not been able to respond in detail to the whole range of general points on housing on this occasion, but there is nothing in the Government's record of which we need to be ashamed.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred to defective housing and its relationship to HIP allocations. The cost derived from defective housing will need to be taken into account in HIP allocations.
The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Wentworth mentioned the Nature Conservancy Council and its resources. The mounting claims on the NCC must be of concern to the Government, but we stand by the intention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to provide the resources for the working of that Act.
I do not think that hon. Members referred to the local environmental services underspending, in Class VII, Vote 1. I am able to give an assurance, in commenting on the Select Committee report, that the Vote will be closely monitored so that early consideration can be given to the possibility of corrective action. That has already been welcomed in the Select Committee's report.
With regard to the British Board of Agrément, I agree that we cannot go on indefinitely in this way. We have been trying to make it pay for almost 20 years. We shall make a final serious attempt to do so but if within the next two years we do not achieve a solution, it would be right to come back and have another look at the future of that organisation.
With regard to voluntary bodies, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend, corning as he did from the Department of Health and Social Security,


has been very interested in the programme and has taken a grip on voluntary grants in the Department of the Environment. He has organised matters on a much more rational basis and has channelled support to national umbrella organisations rather than to the rag-bag of bits and pieces that was on the list before. Although it is difficult to find a definition that allows sufficient flexibility to meet the wide-ranging demands upon my Department, we shall search for a definition that will allow us to provide proper legislative cover. I hope that that will encourage hon. Members to believe that we take criticisms seriously in the Department.
Hon. Members have made entirely justifiable remarks about the level of financial support to the Zoological Society of London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 21 December that the Government had agreed to provide further financial support to the Society for up to three years. We are also considering the possibility of making grants available for capital projects. We are now reviewing with the society its plans for the future. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review. If longer-term financial support were needed, I fully support the Committee's recommendation that the matter should be placed on a proper statutory footing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, referred to the Vote on the Royal Commission on Historic Buildings and Monuments for England expenditure on the royal palaces, and the unsatisfactory information that was provided. He was generous in saying that mistakes are made occasionally when huge sums are being dealt with. The position is much better than it appeared at the time. I am sorry that new information reached the Select Committee too late for its report.
The job given to the new commission and to the Board of Trustees of the Tower Armouries is most important. The Committee rightly expressed concern. I hope that we can allay any fears about the control of spending. These new bodies cover important areas and we shall monitor their expenditure closely. We are grateful for the help of the Select Committee in highlighting an unsatisfactory position which may not have come to light so quickly without its help.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for what he said about the co-operation that he received from the Department. My Department is undertaking a wide range of improvements based partly on the well known MINIS system and partly on the financial management initiative to tighten and sharpen control of expenditure. The way in which the relationship between the officials and the Select Committee has developed has shown that that partnership can have great benefits to us and to the House. It shows how Select Committees can be used in the right way to the benefit of the taxpayer and hon. Members.
I am grateful for the debate that we have had today, and recommend the motion to the House.

Sir Hugh Rossi: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendment

and divide the House. However, I add the caveat that I hope that similar items will not appear in the following year's Estimates.

It being Ten o'clock, the Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates, 1984–85, Class IX, Vote 8 and Class VIII, Vote 5.

Class IX, Vote 8

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £342,548,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Home Office on prisons (including central administrative staff) and associated stores in England and Wales, and the Parole Board.

Class VIII, Vote 5

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £95,152,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing administration; central administration including royal commissions, committees etc.; privatisation of hydraulics research station; the audit commission; payments in connection with licence fees; building construction and civil engineering research and environmental research and surveys.

Class VII, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £1,087,420,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, the option mortgage scheme, improvements and investment, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and sundry other housing services.

Class VIII, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £16,325,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on assistance to the construction industry, other water supply, conservation and sewerage, local authority and other environmental services including recreation.

Class VIII, Vote 2

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £73,696,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on other environmental services including grants in aid and international subscriptions, on grants in aid to the British Waterways Board and Development Commission, on bridgeworks and on developing Civil Defence water supply services.

Class VIII, Vote 4

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £59,956,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1985 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on royal palaces, etc., royal parks, etc., historic buildings, ancient monuments and certain public buildings, the

national heritage, on grants in aid, other grants and on payments to Inland Revenue covering assets accepted in lieu of tax, and on the administration of those activities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day — Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

TRANSFER OF PERSONS CONNECTED WITH TERRORISM

'No international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country or territory outside the British Isles, of persons who would otherwise be covered by the provisions of this Act, shall be made in connection with any such person concerning whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that he had acted on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'. —[Mr. Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
'Provided that no such direction shall be given in any case in which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the prisoner had been acting on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'.

No 2, in clause 2, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
'(8) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act providing for the transfer of any person out of the United Kingdom unless he is satisfied that the prisoner had not been acting on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Lawrence: The two amendments are consequential upon the new clause, which states:
'No international arrangements providing for the transfer between the United Kingdom and a country or territory outside the British Isles, of persons who would otherwise be covered by the provisions of this Act, shall be made in connection with any such person concerning whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that he had acted on behalf of a terrorist organisation or had committed an act of terrorism in the United Kingdom.'.
The amendments deal with the direction that must be made by the Secretary of State and the issue of a warrant under clause 2. The amendments take account of the new clause.
I have no desire to divide the House, but, in return for that magnanimous concession, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will improve upon the rather feeble assurances that he and the Home Secretary have hitherto given on this matter. I say feeble not because I have any wish to impugn the intentions of my hon. Friend or my right hon. and learned Friend, but because assurances so far given will be taken as feeble by foreign powers that have an interest in springing convicted terrorists from our prisons.
Under the Bill as it stands, a convicted terrorist—convicted by a British court and sentenced by a British judge—may be transferred back to his native country, where he may be released to commit further acts of terrorism. If ever a convicted terrorist were to show his face in Britain and kill or maim for a second time, the people would not easily forgive the Government who had permitted that terrorist to be returned, nor would our allies in Europe, the United States or elsewhere. It would be disastrous.
I first raised this matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in August 1983. In his reply to me, he said:
I can, I hope reassure you that we are very much aware of the specific problem to which you refer.
The Council of Europe convention allows transfer to take place only if the prisoner and both countries concerned consent and this proviso is likely to form a central part of any other repatriation agreement we negotiate.
Thus we would retain an absolute discretion to refuse to transfer any prisoner.
That absolute discretion obtains providing the prisoner consents. A terrorist who has been sentenced to life imprisonment will consent to return to his country of origin. Therefore, that reason for reassurance is not sufficiently substantial.
My hon. Friend continued:
I have no doubt that Parliament will expect us to make very clear our policy on the exercise of this discretion. I do not want to anticipate any announcement we might make during the passage of this legislation. It was however a conclusion of the Inter-departmental working party which considered the subject in 1980 that the discretion to refuse would not normally be used except for compelling reasons of public policy.
The then Minister of State Mr. Mayhew indicated in his reply that in circumstances relating to terrorism such compelling reasons for public policy might well exist.
I cavil at the words "might well exist". The words "would exist" would have provided reassurance, but the words "might well exist" do not.
When the matter was raised again in the other place and Lord Elton was asked for reassurance, he said:
Considerations of public policy might lead to a decision to refuse the transfer of any prisoner who had been convicted of particularly horrific crimes and who might be regarded as undeserving of any degree of public sympathy; for instance, in the case of a murderer, a particularly ruthless and unprincipled drug trafficker, or someone who had killed or maimed in the name of some political cause or committed other acts of a terrorist nature. Each case would be dealt with on its merits taking due account of all relevant factors, including the considerations I have mentioned."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 758.]
Once again, the door is left open ever so slightly for a Home Secretary of the future to allow a terrorist offender to be repatriated.
Again, when the matter came before the Second Reading Committee, my hon. Friend dealt with it. My hon. Friend said:
one assurance that will, I hope, bring comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is that almost inevitably public policy considerations would prevent a transfer in the sort of cases that he has suggested.
They were terrorist offences.
for precisely those reasons the Secretary of State has sought the public policy grounds for withholding his consent that we have included in the Bill. Each case will have to be treated on its merits". — [Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26]
Once again, the door is left open. Why is it so important to have something more substantial than those assurances given by honourable men? The answer is, because of the danger of blackmail. I believe that we hold five Libyans; the Libyans hold two innocent Britons. The temptation for Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq or any of those countries that have had some history of terrorism which has spread to this country to put pressure upon us to release their terrorists by arresting innocent Britons is great.
Under existing law we can say, "No." My right hon. and learned Friend can say, "I am sorry, there is no law that can permit me to release someone whom we have sentenced. It is not possible." After the Bill is passed, we


shall not be able to say no, because there will be a law that will permit the Home Secretary to do just what we are most fearful that a future Home Secretary might be under pressure to do. It will, therefore, be inherently easier for a Government to be blackmailed. That unsatisfactory aspect of the Bill does not drive me to say, "It is a wholly bad Bill. Let us reject it in its entirety." Obviosly there are desirable elements of the Bill that I support, in particular, conforming to the international convention.
The advantage of having something in the Bill of the kind for which I and a number of right hon. and hon. Members of the House and peers in the other place have asked is that it would stiffen the backbone of a Government. They would be able to say, "We are a parliamentary democracy. We have our laws. It is simply not possible to do what you want us to do. There is no point in arresting innocent Britons."
The question comes down to this: is there any real reason why we should not exclude terrorist offences from the provisions of the Bill? Three points have been made by the Ministers before today. One is, "We do not define terrorist offences, therefore we cannot define them here." I do not understand that argument. We have Northern Ireland legislation which turns on terrorist offences. We all know what a terrorist offence is. When a person, for political reasons, blows up innocent people in bars, in vehicles, in public or private buildings, or tries to assassinate political leaders, those are acts of terrorism and the persons responsible are terrorists. Why are the Government so coy? Do they not cut much less of a convincing figure when they persist in sheltering behind what is, in realistic political terms, a legalistic myth?
Of course, my hon. Friend will find some formula that will allow him to say no to terrorist offences. I do not believe that that argument is valid.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. and learned Friend is giving a commonsense definition of terrorism. Is not a terrorist offence already defined in Northern Ireland legislation?

Mr. Lawrence: I have already said that, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point that I have made. An objection on that basis no longer holds sway.
The second objection that we have heard from Ministers was set out by my hon. Friend in Second Reading Committee on 16 May 1984. He said:
We must reserve the right to consider each case on its merits because there are no absolute categories. When we talk of categories we always think of those cases that fit clearly in them, but there are some on the margin and it is right that they should be given individual consideration."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26.]
That may be the same as the first point. If it is, I need not repeat the argument. If it varies in the sense that it is possible to have some scope for distinguishing between people who commit offences that are not immediately obviously terrorist offences, they would not be covered by new clause 1.
The third reason also emerges from the Second Reading Committee and from my hon. Friend. He said:
the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a particular transfer, unless he considers that there are compelling reasons of public policy for so doing." —[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 6.]
Public policy—the unruly horse. That is what many of us who support new clause 1 are most fearful of —

leaving the door open. It has happened before and will doubtless happen again. I am merely suggesting that future Secretaries of State should have less reason for responding to the demands of so-called public policy to return terrorists. True public policy requires that the guilty are convicted and sentenced. It requires that our innocent people abroad are not arrested for the purpose of blackmail. That is a form of public policy that is supported by everyone in the country.
10.15 pm
I do not fear that my right hon. and learned Friend will not use his discretion properly. I am apprehensive about what might come after him. Most essentially, I am apprehensive that, as long as a discretion remains, that discretion will be exploited by the very Governments who are responsible for sending terrorists to Britain to cause bloodshed, mayhem and fear on the streets of Britain.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has done a service by tabling new clause 1. The Bill and this proceeding upon consideration is a classic example of the unwisdom of the method of taking a Second Reading in Committee. There was great sense in the standard procedure of the House whereby it is on the Floor of the Chamber that the principles of legislation have to be explained and considered before they are sent, if that is the pleasure of the House, to Committee.
It may be said, and it has been argued in favour of Second Reading in Committee, that when a Bill is uncontroversial and plain sailing it saves the time of the House for the Second Reading to be taken in Committee. I do not think that anyone who has perused the proceedings on this Bill in another place could possibly say that the contents of the Bill were not such as required the utmost attention of the House at all stages of its passage. It is therefore unsatisfactory that the Committee stage took place, and the principal opportunities for amending the Bill took place, before a proper debate had occurred on the Floor of the House upon the principles to which we are committing ourselves by this legislation.
The Bill provides the framework to enable Britain to ratify an international convention. In accordance with what is now fashionable and frequently brought about by international convention, it represents an invasion upon the field of territorial sovereignty. Territorial sovereignty is a principle with which one toys at one's risk and sure enough we shall, if this legislation goes forward, live to regret the fact that we were so ready to tear up the principle of territorial sovereignty to accomplish an international convention.
I do not dispute the humanitarian intentions behind the convention and so behind the legislation, but I suggest that the implications of what we are doing with the Bill as it stands, unrestricted as it is, could be, and probably will in future be, very serious.
At present, we deal with those who are convicted of offences in our own territory, and we exercise our territorial sovereignty if a sentence of imprisonment is passed by keeping people imprisoned within the jurisdiction. That principle is fundamentally breached, and is intended to be breached, by these arrangements for the exchange of prisoners, which in effect entrust to another sovereign power, when an exchange takes place, the duty of carrying out the orders of a British court, and, of course, vice versa. It is a deliberate affront to the principle of


territorial sovereignty, now so scorned as obsolete or obsolescent. But there is great life and sense yet in that principle, as we may find if we are not careful in our construction and administration of this legislation.
I appreciate that so far the convention has been signed only by fewer than a score of countries. Those that have signed it are not those to which the fears expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Burton would most naturally attach. But we are also engaged in making bilateral arrangements that are quite outside the scope of the convention. In Committee in the other place, it transpired, I think, that we are engaged in negotiations with Thailand for that purpose. So even if a country such as the Irish Republic or Libya is not among the signatories to the convention that the Bill would enable us to ratify, we may still find ourselves one day using the Bill's provisions to implement a bilateral agreement that we made for what seemed, at the time, to be a good reason, with a country that does not adhere to the Council of Europe or belong to the North American mainland. It therefore behoves us to take great care of the framework within which we expect future Home Secretaries and Governments to operate.

Mr. Lawrence: If the Bill's provisions make it easier for the pressure of blackmail to be exerted on a British Home Secretary, will not some of the countries that are not yet signatories to the convention hurry to sign it?

Mr. Powell: That had occurred to me. Indeed, it had occurred to me that there might be an anxiety in some quarters, which we might find it diplomatic not to set aside, to secure bilateral arrangements. Indeed, in those circumstances, there might be some attraction from the United Kingdom's point of view too in making such arrangements.
There are two distinct dangers that arise in the context of terrorists offences, and that are incurred by the Bill as it stands, and by the incomplete assurances that the Government have given as to the manner in which it will be operated. The first involves the question of blackmail, which was cogently argued in Committee by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir. P. Goodhart), whom I am glad to see in his place, and which formed the staple of the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. It is a real and substantial possibility. The Government say that there would not be any connection between any blackmailing threat and the case-by-case consideration of prisoners held in this country for the purposes of transfer. It is all very well to say that when one is talking in the abstract but under the pressure of agitated and excited public opinion things are different.
Some of us remember in 1970 the case of Leila Khaled, a case in which, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown a few months afterwards candidly admitted, we prejudiced the principles of the rule of law in Britain in order to facilitate Leila Khaled's departure from this country because it was thought that that would be to the advantage of British subjects who found themselves in disagreeable circumstances elsewhere. So there is precedent for the notion of blackmail and there is precedent for the assertion that Governments are perfectly capable of bending to the wind if the law can even be twisted so as to allow them to bend to the wind. The great safeguard, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, is an absolute non-possumus—the absolute impossibility under the law of

surrendering a prisoner who is lawfully held in durance in this country. Only that could be a protection for a British Government against the pressures of blackmail.
But there is another consideration altogether in which blackmail is not involved but which is just as realistic. Perhaps I might describe it as public scandal — the possibility that a foreigner who had been guilty of an atrocious terrorist offence in Britain might, under the Bill, be returned to his home country and there, in effect, whether by escaping or otherwise, be seen to have evaded the punishment which was his due. I cannot but believe that that would be a cause of grave public scandal and we of this generation in this Parliament who pass the legislation would be held to blame for having made such a thing possible.
It is that consideration in connection with the adjacent Irish Republic, where I do not think the question of the blackmailing motive is likely to arise, which has made my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself so anxious about the provisions of the Bill. It is true that certain assurances have been given. For example, in another place on Second Reading the Government's spokesman said:
We do not intend to put ourselves in a position where we can be browbeaten into the exchange of prisoners on any grounds, whether terrorists or not.
I am prepared to accept the Government's assurance that they do not intend to put themselves in that position, but that is precisely what they are doing by the unrestricted terms of the legislation. The Government spokesman continued:
We intend that the public interest shall always be the basis of our decisions". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 778.]
I compared that with the assurance which was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in Committee where he said:
We want to face the terrorist problem head on and compelling public policy reasons would make it impossible and wholly undesirable for us to transfer such people."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26.]
Those two statements are in themselves about as strong as ministerial statements could be. I have deliberately, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Burton, chosen rather stronger assertions in the mouth of Government spokesmen than he did. What makes me anxious is that I may have been defective in my study of the Bill, but I have found no wording behind which or under the shelter of which those assertions of public policy could be made good. As far as I can see, no clause makes it a duty on the Secretary of State, in the case of a transfer out of the kingdom, to have regard to any considerations, which might be specified, such as public safety or otherwise.
10.30 pm
Unfortunately, we rest wholly on ministerial assurances given during the passage of the Bill and we are leaving the legislation in a form whereby, on the face of it, any other country, pressure group or section of public opinion can argue, "There is nothing in the legislation. Since the legislation is innocent of any qualification, the presumption must be that wherever there is a convention of this sort in force the Secretary of State should obey it." One can imagine the pressure under which a Government would find themselves at those times.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I hope that, even if the Government are not able to accept the new clause, we shall get much more secure reasons, for which a future Home Secretary will, I am sure, be grateful, for supposing


that the risks of blackmail and public scandal, which appear to be implicit in the legislation, will not in fact exist and that we are adequately defended against them.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I support the new clause. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the Bill required the utmost attention at all stages and that it involved an abridgement of territorial sovereignty.
When my noble Friend Lord Elton moved the Second Reading in another place, he described the Bill as
a new departure in the administration of criminal law
and as being actuated by "humanitarian arguments." My noble Friend gave the assurance that
the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a particular transfer unless he considers that there are compelling reasons of public policy for doing so." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 751–531.]
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I require a different assurance. Blackmail was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend and by the right hon. Member for Down, South, but I want an assurance that the legislation will guarantee that there will be no transfer of terrorist prisoners unless they are to be safely held for the term of their sentence.
Suppose that the Republic of Ireland adheres to the convention and that a dangerous terrorist from the Republic is imprisoned within the British islands — I think that the Minister will agree with the definition of British islands spelt out in amendment No. 4. Suppose also that that terrorist is sent to the Republic to serve his sentence. I am not sure about the humanitarian arguments; I am not sure whether he would be more comfortable in Mountjoy or Portlaoise than in a prison on this side of the water.
The Republic is a precarious state, governed by unstable coalitions—the fruit of proportional representation—and some Irish Governments are always pandering to and looking for the support of small extreme factions close to the men of the bullet and the bomb.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Disgraceful.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is not disgraceful to describe the state of affairs in the Irish Republic. This is the nature of the politics of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Dubs: Is the hon. Gentleman making that accusation against the present Irish Government?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am saying that Irish politicians have to be extremely careful what they do if they are to remain in office. I am not speaking of the present Irish Government, but there has been deference to extreme groups close to terrorism to perpetuate Governments' periods of office. That fact is well known to all those who study these matters.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): The hon. Gentleman's remarks are disgraceful. Which Irish Government since 1922 have given way to extremist measures because of seeking to obtain a coalition?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is not disgraceful to say what is true. It is disgraceful for an hon. Gentleman to put words into my mouth which I did not utter. I said that Irish Governments must consider, because they operate on a small electoral margin, various small groups in the country. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman recalls the connection of the present Leader of the Opposition and former Taoiseach with certain curious operations in connection with the provision and importation of arms.
I am saying that the Irish Republic is a precarious state. I therefore wonder what would happen if, in some future circumstances — I am not speaking of the present meritorious Irish Government — a dangerous terrorist who was sent from one of Her Majesty's prisons within the jurisdiction to serve his sentence in the Irish Republic was released, or was enabled to escape, before the time of his sentence had expired. That, in the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South would be a grave public scandal. It would also be a grave public danger.

Mr. Bermingham: Clause 1(2) says:
The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act, and, if he has issued one, shall revoke it, in any case where after the duty under subsection (1) above has arisen and before the transfer in question takes place circumstances arise, or are brought to the Secretary of State's attention, which in his opinion make it inappropriate that the transfer should take place.
The question of terrorism has been canvassed on more than one occasion, as hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware. What Home Secretary, hon. Members asked, would ever issue a warrant for a terrorist to be transferred?
Reference has been made to the Republic of Ireland. I make no secret of the fact that I was born there, and many members of my family, going back generations, have been born there. I am the first to condemn anyone, of whatever race or nationality, who commits a terrorist offence. I have said time and again — I said it regularly when we debated what became the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984—that there is nothing special about a terrorist. He is a criminal and he commits criminal offences, and the sooner we get back to appreciating that we are talking about crime — albeit crime of a moat heinous nature — the better. The terrorist's crime is in no way justified by it having been committed in pursuit of some spurious cause.

Mr. Lawrence: The difference is that, with normal crime, somebody is unlikely to try to blackmail the Home Secretary into giving a release or gaining repatriation.

Mr. Bermingham: People can bring pressure on the Home Secretary in respect of any criminal's detention. It has been known for people to make spurious claims of innocence, and goodness knows what else, and to have built up a terrific head of steam in support of a man who has been rightly convicted of crime, just as a head of steam has been built up in support of somebody who has been wrongly convicted of crime.
We come to the crucial test; what is the position of the Home Secretary? What is his status within our system? He is a servant of the Crown who is answerable to the House. That is where our protection lies. Let us use as an example a man from the mythical country of Transylvania who has committed an offence of bombing in pursuit of a national cause in his own country and seeks to bomb his way to victory by using Britain for his bombing. This is not a spurious example because there have been numerous instances of that sort involving people from the middle east.
If such a person is convicted and sentenced in this country, how many Home Secretaries, past and present, would consent to the transfer of that criminal back to his own country, where he may face an immediate amnesty and release? Public opinion in this country would not permit a Home Secretary to take such a step. That is the


reality. That same public opinion would be directed to someone who emerged from the Republic or Northern Ireland and came over here to commit terrorist offences.
To argue the case that has been adopted by some hon. Members is to cast a slur on the Republic for it suggests that it would seek the return of its citizen and grant him amnesty. The Republic does not grant amnesties to terrorists. It has as great a loathing of terrorism as the United Kingdom. It accepts, as we do, that it is criminality of the worst and most bestial sort. A slur is cast also on Home Secretaries present and future. It suggests that in some way they would seek to give way to a third country which said, "We want this chap back because we want to let him go" while knowing full well that the full weight of public opinion in Britain would be adverse to that happening.
I recognise and understand the emotion that lies behind the word "terrorism" but let us try once again to return the terrorist to what he is, nothing more than a common criminal who is dealt with by our legal system as a common criminal. When considering the amendments and new clauses let us take on board the arguments advanced on Second Reading, in Committee and in another place, when it was said repeatedly by Ministers that no Home Secretary, bearing in mind the provisions of clause 1(2), would give way to the argument that a man should be repatriated, knowing full well that he would be going home to an amnesty. None of us would be party to such a decision and I ask the House to reject the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I support the new clause. The Bill in its present form will be of concern to everyone in Northern Ireland who believes in British justice. We should be aware of the attitude of the Eire judiciary and some members of the Eire Government to their sons who go abroad in the guise of patriots and commit the most diabolical acts in the name of Irish nationalism.
At this moment there is in custody in this country a citizen of Dublin who is suspected of the most heinous crime perpetrated upon the innocent people of the capital, a crime which, although commonplace in Northern Ireland, has caused great consternation and shock to the community on this side of the United Kingdom. We shared the grief, which was expressed by the representatives of my party in the House and others, for the victims of the atrocity, who are also our fellow citizens.
We can imagine the reaction if an Irish individual were convicted and sent to Dublin to serve his sentence. He or she would be treated almost as a hero. Such punishment as was administered would not be rigorous.
We have heard many times in the past the clamourings from the southern Irish religious leaders and from the Republican Government for the return of prisoners serving their sentences in British prisons. It is a matter of great concern to me—and I am sure it is shared by many of my fellow countrymen — that once again we are witnessing an appeasement by the Government. They are attempting to placate the vociferous minority and to show a magnanimous attitude to a foreign Government who have never reciprocated the concessions that, over the past 50 years, the Government have given to them in the interests of peace and harmony.
10.45 pm
I shall illustrate the sympathy of the Irish judiciary to terrorism. I draw the attention of the House to the recent case of Philip James McMahon who escaped from Newry courthouse in 1975 and fled to the Republic. The Supreme Court in Dublin, in a unanimous reserved judgment, upheld the appeal against extradition on the ground that the escape was connected with a political offence.
Let us be clear about this offence, which was admitted by the subject of this incident. He said that he was a labourer in Dublin and that he lived there. He was tried before the Crown court in Belfast for armed robbery and was convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. He said that the robbery was carried out by order of the IRA, of which he is a member, to raise funds for the campaign for the liberation of Northern Ireland from British rule. This individual now walks free in the Irish Republic and presumably he will continue his efforts on behalf of the organisation that spawned him. The House must be aware that, by applying this section of the Bill to the Republic of Ireland, it is giving credence and encouragement to the IRA and its fellow travellers in their pursuance, by whatever means, of their insufferable objectives.
Such weakness as is suggested by the Bill only spurs these terrorist organisations into even more vicious and sustained action against innocent men, women and children in any part of the United Kingdom. In our recent debate on the New Ireland Forum it was said by many right hon. and hon. Members that the rights of Ulster Unionists are not up for negotiation. There are 1 million people in Northern Ireland who are determined that they will never surrender those rights which, in our part of the United Kingdom, are offered to everyone who lives there. Sending murderers, arsonists and common criminals to what is considered a haven will be seen as an erosion of these rights, and that is why I support the new clause.

Mr. John David Taylor: I support the new clause because it refers to the specific problem of terrorists. In the United Kingdom we have suffered for many years from terrorism by the PLO, the Libyans and by people from the Irish Republic. In particular, those of us from Northern Ireland constituencies know only too well the suffering of British people at the hands of Irish Republican terrorists.
The Bill has been presented to the House by a somewhat unusual procedure in that tonight, with only 20 hon. Members present, we have the first chance to consider the contents of the legislation. It has been discussed in the other place and in Committee, but this is the first time that it has been brought before all hon. Members.
In the Bill the Government are asking for a blank cheque to deal with the transfer of sentenced terrorists from this country to others. The Government are asking that they, and they alone, should have discretion in deciding who shall go and who shall not. They ask that this House shall not place any limitations on the free hand of the Home Secretary to decide which warrants he should sign.
In the United Kingdom we have seen the refusal of the Home Secretary, under considerable pressure from time to time—perhaps even blackmail, as some hon. Members have suggested—to transfer sentenced terrorist prisoners from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom. He has used very firm and clear


arguments showing why such transfers should not take place. Here we find a contradiction, in that he is now prepared to support the transfer of sentenced terrorists outside the United Kingdom to other jurisdictions and to other sovereign nations, yet he will reject and oppose the transfer within the United Kingdom of sentenced terrorists.
It is clear that in considering the legislation the Government did not take into consideration the problem of the transfer of sentenced IRA terrorists. They did not take into consideration the question whether the legislation affected the transfer of IRA terrorists from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland. We have only to look at the presentation of the Bill in another place when the Minister, in introducing the legislation, was questioned by Lord Kilbracken, who said:
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The right hon. Member may quote only from Ministers in the other place. He may put in his own words any references to other speakers in the debate.

Mr. Taylor: I will not quote the question, but I will quote the Minister's reply. He said:
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a question to which the answer must be phrased with great care and I shall give it to him when I reply at the end of the debate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 758.
In other words, the noble Lord did not know whether the legislation affected the Republic of Ireland, and it was only at the end of the debate, having consulted his officials, that he then discovered that Irish terrorists could be transferred under the legislation from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland. That was the first time it came to his attention.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear in Committee that article 12 of the Council of Europe convention provides that
'each party may grant pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence in accordance with its constitution or other laws.'"
Those of us in the United Kingdom dealing with the problem of Irish Republican terrorism, and knowing what a running sore it has been over the past 15 years—there has been no extradition of wanted terrorists from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom—recognise immediately that it is the constitution of the Republic of Ireland that is used time and again in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland as the basis for refusing extradition of wanted terrorists. If the constitution is used by the southern Irish authorities as a pretext to refuse the extradition of terrorists, we can easily assume that the constitution will yet again be used as a pretext for going soft on those Irish terrorist transferred back from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland.
The possibility is underlined by the Under-Secretary of State, because in further debate in Committee on the same date he said:
Where, under the terms of an agreement, a prisoner who has been transferred from the United Kingdom is discharged in the other country earlier than he would have been if the had stayed here, a procedure is needed to ensure that, should he return here, he would not be subject to arrest and detention under the original order of the court." — [Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 17 and 7.]
The Under-Secretary of State is accepting that if an IRA terrorist is transferred from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland, he can released earlier there than he would have been released in accordance with the wishes

of the courts of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, if he is released, he can return here and know that nothing will happen to him and that he will not be lifted again by the authorities in the United Kingdom. That suggests that the legislation will provide a possibility for people who have been found guilty in our courts of terrorist acts to go to another country—not only the Republic of Ireland—to be released earlier than intended by the United Kingdom courts and to return to the United Kingdom to continue to kill, damage and harm people in this community.
This is dangerous legislation. The Government are asking for a blank cheque. The legislation should be strongly opposed by those who uphold the safety of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and therefore I support the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I recognise the strong feeling on this issue. I am in no sense surprised or even dismayed by it. I have sought throughout the Bill's stages to deal with this matter as clearly and forthrightly as I can. It is perfectly right that, although the overwhelming majority of prisoners who will be affected by these provisions will have nothing to do with terrorism and none of the matters that have been canvassed this evening will apply, grave concern will attach to any suggestion that some people held in our prisons will be sent back to their country of origin.
When the matter was raised on Second Reading, I sought to state the Home Office position as forthrightly as I could. I said:
almost inevitably public policy considerations would prevent a transfer in the sort of cases that he has suggested.
I was referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) had said about terrorist offences. His point was mirrored by what was said in the House tonight by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and other hon. Members. I continued:
For precisely those reasons the Secretary of State has sought the public policy grounds for withholding his consent that we have included in the Bill. Each case will have to be treated on its merits, but it is profoundly unlikely that any of the cases that he has in mind would ever be the subject of an agreement to transfer.
I went on to say:
We want to face the terrorist problem head on and compelling public policy reasons would make it imposssible and wholly undesirable for us to transfer such people."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 16 May 1984; c. 26.]
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who is always fair in his judgments on these matters, said that that was about as strong as a ministerial statement can be. I was grateful to him for saying that, because I believed that to be so when I uttered it. I intended it to be received as such. It goes right to the edge of what can be permitted to fall from the mouth of any Minister when defending a request from the House to give him a discretion which he cannot in any circumstances entirely fetter. In no sense —I say this to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton—can that be called a feeble assurance. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South thought that it was a feeble assurance.
The question at issue is whether it is right that the Home Office should have any discretion in this matter. I should have thought that it must be accepted that if we are to


retain a discretion we cannot state any more clearly than was said on Second Reading how we propose to exercise that discretion in relation to terrorist offences.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was wrong to say that when framing the Bill we had not taken into account the possibility of transferring terrorists. It was predominantly for that reason that we believed that it was integral to the Bill that the Secretary of State should have absolute discretion, whatever the views of the other state or the prisoner, to refuse a request for transfer if he thought that it was right so to do.
I say to the right hon. Member for Down, South and other hon. Members who have raised this point that there is nothing sinister in not including in the legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to certain issues before exercising his discretion, because no Secretary of State could properly exercise his discretion without taking account of those matters. It would be superfluous to put those requirements in the legislation, because the essence of the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State on these matters is that he would have regard to the consequences of his act.
In relation to terrorism, as we all understand, the consequences of the act would be gravely damaging for a variety of reasons. First, it might be thought to encourage terrorism. Secondly, it would not have proper regard to the utter abhorrence of the public for terrorist acts so that even if, as the legislation intends, the person concerned were to be incarcerated in his own country for the full period that he would serve here the public would still take grave offence. Moreover, it is for the very reason that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned—that a state might be tempted to release somebody prematurely on the basis of article 12 of the convention —that no Home Secretary worth his salt would wish to run that risk if he felt that there would be any pressure on the Government of the receiving state to take that cause.
11 pm
For all those reasons, the discretion of the Secretary of State to refuse under clause 1(1)(b) is absolute and those would be the grounds on which he would choose to do so.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps the Minister will clear up a difficulty that many of us have found in relation to clause 1(2), to which attention was drawn by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Under that subsection, only where the duty has already arisen is the Secretary of State forbidden to issue his warrant if
circumstances arise or are brought to the Secretary of State's attention, which in his opinion make it inappropriate that the transfer should take place.
It seems curious deliberately to leave the general issue of discretion quite unqualified but in the special case, where something arises after the duty comes into existence, to provide specifically that the warrant shall not be made if it is inappropriate.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that as I intended to point out that the absolute discretion to withhold rests in subsection (1)(b), not in subsection (2), as I believe that that may cause some confusion. It is only when the Secretary of State and the other two parties have consented that the duty arises and can be discharged, but if circumstances then arose that made it inappropriate to do so the Secretary of State

would, as it were, abrogate his previous consent by exercising his power under subsection (2), but the duty would not arise if from the outset the Secretary of State had reached the conclusion that for compelling reasons of public policy it would not be appropriate to contemplate a transfer.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): As it is often said that no Parliament can bind another, does my hon. Friend agree that in the same way no Secretary of State can bind another? If the occupant of the great position of Secretary of State changed or if his attitude changed, would it not be helpful to have the new clause so as to make the view of the House clear to any future Secretary of State?

Mr. Mellor: I appreciate that point and I am about to deal with it, if my hon. Friend will be patient.
We have described as clearly as we can—consistent with leaving a discretion to treat each case as an individual case—the way in which we propose to exercise the discretion in relation to terrorist offences. The question then arises whether we should have any discretion at all in those cases. First, the discretion is wholly in line with the discretion of all Home Secretaries always to be unfettered in relation to matters such as immigration control, release of prisoners on parole and life sentence prisoners. There are different requirements in respect of each, but the basis of the exercise of Home Office discretion is that there is individual consideration of each case.
In my respectful submission, that does not prevent a Home Secretary from reaching the conclusion that to safeguard the public interest he must make general declarations of his intention, although he always leaves himself room to have regard to a special case. The alternative to doing that, if we were prepared —[Interruption.] I ask my hon. Friends to bear with me. It is difficult for me to answer an important debate when there is such a noisy conversation going on.
I want to tackle the question whether we should introduce the concept of terrorist offences more widely into our law. They are there to a limited degree at the moment and are part of the law of Northern Ireland, for obvious and apparent reasons on which I do not need to dilate. They are in the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to our rights to exclude people from this country.
When invited to restore capital punishment for terrorist offences, the House resisted the invitation and several speeches suggested that it would be inappropriate and, indeed, confusing in our law to have to determine, as well as the issue whether a person was guilty of a criminal offence, whether it was motivated by terrorism or arose from pure criminality.
The point was also made forcefully and vigorously—I found it compelling—that we play into the hands of a terrorist if we give him status over and above that of a common criminal, because we put him into a category that he wants to be put into, as someone who is different from a murderer or other criminal. That is such a major departure from the way in which we have customarily done things in our law that it should be entered into only after great thought. I do not think that it would be helpful. That does not lessen our resolve that no one should think after this measure, any more than after anything else that we


might do in the Home Office, that our determination to resist terrorists and to ensure that they are punished for the crimes that they commit is any the less.
Blackmail is a serious issue, but it does not arise effectively in relation to the measure.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Minister tell us if the Government do not want to elevate terrorists in legislation, why public opinion should change them from being criminals into terrorists and therefore super people, so that pressure would be brought against the Government if they were to release them?

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps it is the time of night, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot pretend to have followed that intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have another go.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps that is the problem that I have in understanding the Minister's reply. He has said that it is not the intention of the Government to elevate terrorists above the rank of ordinary criminals. But behind the answers up to this moment there was a suggestion that the Minister could not do certain things because there would be a public reaction and a scandal. Why, if that is the mind of the Government, should the public treat it as a scandal if a person is a terrorist rather than a criminal?

Mr. Mellor: I do not believe that that quite meets the point. As my noble Friend Lord Elton made clear in another place, not only terrorist offenders will fall at the hurdle of the public policy objection. The crime in question might be an especially despicable murder, which has nothing to do with terrorism. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned sex offences. I agree with him that the public policy objection to transferring prisoners is in no sense restricted to terrorists, although terrorists are the most obvious part of that restricted group.
On the question of blackmail, I am totally convinced that none of the powers in the Bill make it more or less likely that we shall be subjected to blackmail of the sort that has been suggested. There are a number of reasons for that. First, the Bill does not envisage a position in which someone says, "We have one of yours, so why not give us back one of ours who we want?" This is done on an individual basis, on the assumption that there is a prisoner of one nationality in the prison of another country, and that arrangements can be made, either through the treaty or bilaterally, for a transfer to take place. There is no requirement that there should be any exchange of prisoners.
If a Secretary of State was minded to agree to blackmail, he would have plenty of powers to do so. We know the decision that was taken on the Leila Khaled case. Other exchanges arose as a result not of blackmail, but of negotiation. For example, Lonsdale was transferred to behind the iron curtain by the use of prerogative powers.
If a Secretary of State is minded, for perfectly valid reasons, such as an exchange making sense, or because of blackmail, to ship someone to another country to wash his hands of the problem, it would be wrong to suggest that he does not have the power to do so under his already wide powers. When the right hon. Member for Down, South talks about the Government bending, I must tell him that the Government have supple enough limbs now and do not need any ointment provided in this measure to give them

any additional spring. If a Government want to succumb to pressure, they can do so now. That is why it is no more likely that pressure will be put upon this country because of this Bill than at any time in the past.
In asking the House to reject the new clause, I in no sense mean that we believe that this is a suitable Bill to allow the transfer of the several dozen terrorist prisoners in our prisons. I do not believe that any Secretary of State is likely to arrive at the conclusion that it would be appropriate to do that. However, it would be in keeping with the way that Home Office discretion has been handled in individual cases over the years that there should be a residual discretion. The category of terrorist is not self-defining; there are plenty of safeguards within the statements that have been made and within the common sense of the situation that make it imperative that the Secretary of State should refuse any application in any of the cases mentioned tonight.

Mr. Lawrence: I have a great deal of admiration for my hon. Friend who is brave, forceful, persuasive and eloquent in his arguments, even though he shows a slight hint of intolerance towards we lesser mortals who may not agree with him. But he has stood upon the precise position upon which he stood during Second Reading, and the precise position that our right hon. and noble Friend in another place stood upon when the matter was decided there.
The difficulty that my hon. Friend faces is twofold. First, if he is saying that the Secretary of State will always refuse to return a terrorist, there can be no reason why that is not incorporated in the Bill. It is when he refuses to incorporate that that there is a little area of greyness when, if someone if not observant, aware and informed, the repatriation of a terrorist could take place. That is what concerns us.
Secondly, it is no longer open to my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, to say that we cannot define what a terrorist is. In at least two Acts of Parliament the word "terrorist" is defined. It is defined in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. To say that that was the subject of discussion when we talked about capital punishment, and the reason why some hon. Members advanced objections to capital punishment for terrorist offences causing death, is neither here nor there. We were not discussing legislation, but a motion. If everything that an hon. Gentleman said in a speech is taken as a ban on future legislation, this House would have come to a pretty pass.
11.15 pm
Neither of my hon. Friend's arguments was persuasive. What was more persuasive was the argument that the Home Secretary can exercise a prerogative power. The reason for inserting into the Bill a bar on terrorist offenders being returned is not to abrogate the prerogative power, because it cannot be abrogated, but to make it clear beyond peradventure to the people whom we represent—they are important, especially in those parts of the country most susceptible to terrorism — that it was Parliament's intention that, but for the prerogative power, there should be no weakening and no concession to pressures from foreign powers. That must and can be explained. It will stiffen the backbone of a Government in negotiation or discussion with the head of a foreign power.
I am sorely pressed to pursue new clause 1 with its attendant amendments. The only reason why I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw it is the I gave an undertaking to do so when I made my opening speech. I had no idea that so many hon. Members would support the new clause. Had I been aware of that, I would not have committed myself. Having committed myself, I must, I am afraid, remain true to my word. It would be inappropriate not to withdraw the new clause in those circumstances. However, what the House chooses to do is its business. I am honour bound not to press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 121.

Division No. 391]
[11.17 pm


AYES


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


McCusker, Harold
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maginnis, Ken
Winterton, Nicholas


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nicholson, J.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
 Mr. William Ross.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hirst, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Ancram, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Ashby, David
Jackson, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lightbown, David


Baldry, Anthony
Lilley, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Beith, A. J.
Lord, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
MacGregor, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Maclean, David John


Best, Keith
Major, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Malins, Humfrey


Bottomley, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Marland, Paul


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Marlow, Antony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mates, Michael


Bright, Graham
Mather, Carol


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bruinvels, Peter
Mellor, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Merchant, Piers


Budgen, Nick
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Burt, Alistair
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Butterfill, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Murphy, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Needham, Richard


Cash, William
Neubert, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Newton, Tony


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Norris, Steven


Cope, John
Osborn, Sir John


Couchman, James
Ottaway, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Penhaligon, David


Dicks, Terry
Powell, William (Corby)


Dorrell, Stephen
Powley, John


Dover, Den
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dykes, Hugh
Raffan, Keith


Evennett, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Gregory, Conal
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heddle, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tracey, Richard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Derek
Waddington, David


Steen, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Watson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitfield, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Terlezki, Stefan
Wood, Timothy


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

EXPENSES

Mr. Dubs: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 21, after 'secure', insert 'following that transfer'.
I do not think that the amendment will detain the House for more than a few moments. In clause 7 a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to collect from the prisoner or some other source the cost of transferring the prisoner to the United Kingdom. The principle of that charge on the prisoner was debated at length in Committee, and I do not wish to reopen that argument now. However, one aspect of the process of charging is of particular concern, and that is at the heart of the amendment.
The amendment's intention is that the Secretary of State would seek to secure the money only following the prisoner's transfer. That may seem a simple point, but it involves a matter of principle. It is that otherwise the prisoner or his family and relatives might feel obliged to find the money somewhere—even if it was not readily available to them—as a condition of getting the prisoner transferred to a gaol in this country.
On 12 June, the Minister dealt with this point in Committee. He said:
I make it clear again that there is no question of the transfer of a prisoner being held up just because the funds were not available. We fully accept that this is one of those issues where the transfer should go forward on the normal principles, and the question of how the Secretary of State pursues, if he chooses to do so, his claim for the money can be dealt with later. There is no question of a pistol being held to the head of the prisoner and saying, 'If you do not provide the money forthwith we shall not agree to the transfer'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 June 1984;c. 22.]
That is a fairly clear statement, and the amendment seeks only to give effect to it. It is a very simple amendment, and it will prevent any ambiguity. I hope that the Minister will accept it. It embodies the principle that he fully accepted, and it will make that clause just a little bit clearer and more satisfactory for the prisoner and his family.

Mr. Mellor: I certainly stand by the undertaking that I gave in Committee, but unfortunately the amendment does not have the effect that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) envisages. It would prevent the Secretary of State from having the power to require an undertaking to


repay before the prisoner was transferred if no funds were available beforehand. Of course, I adhere to my previous statement that there is no question of someone not being transferred because the money is not available at that point. But the Secretary of State needs to have an undertaking to repay. In Committee, I dealt with the question of whether he enforces it once the prisoner is back. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary's discretion not to press for payment was widened in deference to the Opposition's arguments.
The possibly unintended effect of the amendment would be that the position of a prisoner being transferred from overseas would be easier than that of a tourist who had been mugged in Malaga or Torremolinos. If that tourist went to the British consulate and asked to be repatriated, he would have to enter into an undertaking to repay when he got back. If we wish to retain support for the Bill in the wider commumity, it must be unnaceptable for a prisoner to be transferred on more favourable terms than would be applied to an ordinary member of the public.
I am happy to repeat the undertaking that I gave in Committee, that the Secretary of State will obviously decide whether to press for repayment on the circumstances of the individual case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment, and I stand by the undertakings that I have given.

Mr. John David Taylor: I seek clarification from the Minister on the question of expenses. We are talking about the expenses of two different people. In the first case someone is transferred to the United Kingdom, and in the second, someone is transferred out of it. If someone is transferred from the United Kingdom to another state, for what expenses will the Government be liable?
Am I right in saying that the Government will pay all the costs of accompanying security officers on the transfer of a prisoner to this country, but that the prisoner will be liable only for the expense of transfer from the other country to the United Kingdom port of entry and that the Government will take up the cost of travel from there to the particular prison to which the prisoner will be transferred? Many of the aeroplane flights from Europe to London are much cheaper than the flights from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow or Belfast. Therefore, not only will the Government accept all the costs of the accompanying custodial officers but the major cost of transferring the prisoner himself.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, that seems to be right.

Mr. Dubs: In the light of the Minister's comments, I do not wish to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

INTERPRETATION AND CERTIFICATES

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
'"British Islands" means the totality of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland.'
The amendment deals with one case of the large matter which was raised by the new clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but it avoids many of the difficulties which the Minister found in accepting that new clause. In particular it avoids the

whole question of a definition of terrorism or of a restriction of the theoretically unlimited discretion of the Secretary of State. It has the perfectly simple effect of removing the Irish Republic from the scope of the Bill altogether. It therefore does in practice deal with the principal case where the questions which were discussed in an earlier debate are likely to arise.
I want to make it clear that in proposing to remove the Irish Republic from the application of the Bill there is no question of impugning the good faith of the Irish Republic or casting doubt upon its intention to carry out agreements into which it has entered. Indeed, the amendment would be as much in the interests of the Irish Republic as it would of this country since in the present and foreseeable circumstances great embarrassment of the potentiality of public scandal exists where a transfer has taken place of a terrorist offender between one country and the other.
Incidentally, so far as I can understand from the Bill, it is not a requisite for the transfer that the prisoner transferred out should be a citizen of the receiving country. He could be, for example, a citizen of both countries or he could be a citizen of a third country. Therefore, there are many circumstances in which pressure could well be exerted, for instance on humanitarian grounds, for the transfer of a terrorist prisoner from imprisonment in the United Kingdom to imprisonment in the Irish Republic, with the attendant risks of what might follow after the transfer. So we are dealing with a practical possibility, indeed the principal practical possibility of public scandal under the Act. It could only be to the advantage of both countries that such cases should be avoided.
The Irish Republic has not so far signed the convention. It has been in no hurry to sign the convention and we have no knowledge of any bilateral arrangement which is proposed to be made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Therefore, I hope that that will commend the amendment to the Government at this stage. They could eliminate from the Act the one country with which we have a land frontier and the one country with which we share the same terrorist menace and thus avoid in that case the mischief which was apprehended by those who argued and voted in favour of the new clause with which the House has just dealt.

Mr. Alex Carlile: With great respect to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), it seems to me that his amendment inevitably contains significant discrimination against the Irish Republic and, perhaps more important, undermines the purpose of the Bill in relation to the United Kingdom and the Republic.
The Bill, which has come about after many years of international pressure and the preparation of the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, is intended to deal with the harrowing problem of the numerous prisoners who are sentenced not for terrorism, but for sentences that fall within the ordinary criminal calendar and who, because they are sentenced in a foreign jurisdiction, prima facie have to serve their sentences in that foreign jurisdiction.
There are numerous Irish citizens serving sentences in United Kingdom prisons for ordinary offences and numerous United Kingdom citizens serving sentences in the Republic. The difficulties faced by such prisoners are well documented. The most obvious are the problems of travel for their families and the fact that the prisoners can


play no part in the upbringing of their children. There are other humanitarian problems which the Council of Europe accepted, after considerable consideration, as serious and worthy of a convention.

Mr. Forth: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that those who committed the crimes should have thought of that when they committed the crime? Is not it asking a lot of us to pick up the tab afterwards?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman asks for far more sophistication than exists in the criminal mind. In some instances, the criminal should have considered those matters, and perhaps did, but his wife and family did not. Part of the basis of the convention is that it is wrong that the close relatives of a person serving a sentence abroad should be deprived of the ordinary rights that they would have if he were serving his sentence in the United Kingdom.
It may be said that there is no problem between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, because we have a land border. However, the Bill presents the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that if there are bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Republic or if the Republic becomes a signatory to the convention, prisoners will be transferred from the Republic to prisons on the mainland of Great Britain and to local prisons near to their family home. It is of paramount importance not to thwart the purpose of the Bill in relation to the one foreign jurisdiction for which it may have the greatest utility.

Mr. John David Taylor: I support the amendment, which is consistent with what was said in the debate on the new clause on terrorism. Indeed, I preferred the new clause, because it specifically mentioned terrorism as the matter at issue. The amendment covers all types of criminals and is weaker than the new clause.
However, I wish to emphasise several aspects of the amendment. The first is the nationality of persons transferred back to the Republic of Ireland. Many people in the United Kingdom have dual citizenship and people could take out citizenship of the Republic after having been sentenced to prison in the United Kingdom. They need not have been born in the Irish Republic to do that. People who have been here for several generations could, if they wish, take out citizenship of the Republic of Ireland. We are opening the floodgates through which many people in the United Kingdom could, by this measure, seek transfer to the Republic.
11.45 pm
I said earlier, and I repeat, that the Government did not recognise that the transfer of terrorist prisoners from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland would be a major issue in the consideration of this legislation. It is clear from reading earlier debates that they did not take that aspect of the matter adequately into account. Indeed, Lord Elton in another place did not even know whether the Bill would apply to the Republic, and it was only after some hours of debate that he was able to confirm that it extended to the Republic of Ireland. That is why I support the amendment.

Mr. Dubs: As I listened to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I thought that his usual logic

had deserted him, for it was difficult to appreciate his argument for the amendment. For example, according to the Interpretation Act 1978, the definition of "British Islands" in subsequent legislation covers the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but not the Republic of Ireland. It would seem, therefore, that we would have a confused situation if we adopted the amendment.
I prefer, however, to discuss the amendment by dealing with the principle involved. Certain remarks were made when we were debating an earlier amendment about the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I found those remarks offensive and untrue. That Government have made clear on countless occasions their detestation of terrorism. It was regrettable, therefore, that hon. Members of this House should have attacked the Government.
The amendment, if passed, would undermine the purpose of the Bill. Governments arrive at an agreement which makes possible the subsequent repatriation of prisoners from one country to the other. The amendment would undermine that position. It makes no sense that in respect of a country with which we have friendly and close ties and with which there is much interchange, in tourism and other matters, we should debar prisoners from having an opportunity that is enjoyed by prisoners from other countries.
Why should we, as would be the effect of the amendment, prevent British citizens—who, say, are on holiday in the Republic and who commit a criminal offence — from being allowed to return here? [Interruption.] I suspect that Conservative Members are saying, "That is their lookout." That is an argument against the whole basis of the Bill, and hon. Members who feel that way can express their view on Third Reading.
I support the principle of the Bill and I am not seeking to stir up trouble, directly or inadvertently. There is no reason why a country with which we have friendly ties should be excluded from the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for moving the amendment in such order and for recognising that we fully ventilated the issue of terrorism when discussing new clause 1. Although he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were not successful in winning the Division on the new clause, I hope that they will be able to take comfort from the assurances that I gave.
The difficulty posed by the amendment is that by taking the Irish Republic out of the arrangements we would preclude the transfer of a number of prisoners between the two countries who have nothing to do with terrorism, and as such I would have difficulty in commending it to my right hon. and hon. Friends. A greater difficulty even than that, though that is difficult enough, was anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. Just as he saw the point about the Interpretation Act 1978, although the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) seemed to think that he had not, he recognised immediately the argument that would be advanced against the amendment, which is that we would be ssen to be impugning the Republic if we were to separate it from every other country.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that in making this proposal there was no intention in his mind of separating the Republic. I accept the sincerity of that statement, but if the British Government were to have to enter a formal reservation on their signature to the


convention stating that it could not have force between the United Kingdom and the Republic, which is the only state with which we have a land boundary—the Republic is a fellow member of the Council of Europe and the European Community — I fear that that would appear to be something of an insult to the Republic. I cannot see that any such reservation would not carry such an interpretation, although I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not intend it to do so.
It is our intention and hope that the Republic will sign the convention and that there will be transfers of prisoners. We are not concerned with terrorist prisoners. I should be astonished if a terrorist prisoner were to be transferred from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland in the circumstances that have been set out. However, there are quite a few burglars and other such prisoners, and if the Irish Government are prepared to receive them there seems no reason why burglars currently languishing in London prisons should not be transferred, and equally no reason why we should preclude such transfers.

Mr. William Ross: Have the Government made any attempt to quantify the number of prisoners now in gaol in the United Kingdom who could apply for transfers to Irish prisons? What is the percentage and what is the total number?

Mr. Mellor: We have the figures in a number of instances. There are about 3,100 prisoners who were born overseas in a prison population of about 45,000. Quite a few of those prisoners have the right to remain here and so would not be transferred elsewhere. I am talking generally about those born overseas, and not only in the Republic, although quite a few of the prisoners would come from the Republic. If they were to apply and if the Irish Government were prepred to receive them back, it would be for us to decide whether the circumstances made it right for there to be a transfer. In most instances the prisoners would have a right to remain here notwithstanding the fact that they had committed a criminal offence and had been imprisoned. I think it unlikely that they would ask to be transferred.
It is not necessarily sinister that someone should want to be transferred to the Republic. The effect of the transfer would be—I say this while looking encouragingly at my right hon. and hon. Friends—that the British taxpayer would no longer have to maintain him in prison. He would be transferred only if the receiving Government were prepared to uphold the sentence that we had passed.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: That is the point.

Mr. Mellor: It is worth stressing that in all these arrangements the prisoners will not be transferred to their countries of origin to heroes' welcomes with ticker-tape receptions through the streets of the capitals. They will go back under the terms of a solemn obligation that their countries have entered into either formally through the European convention or through bilateral or ad hoc arrangements, that they will honour the sentences that have been passed.
In endeavouring to quell the fires it seems that I am stirring them up, and perhaps I should shut up.

Mr. John David Taylor: We have been addressing ourselves to the number of prisoners who would opt to leave the United Kingdom to go to the Republic if we

operated an arrangement through the convention, or a bilateral arrangement with the Irish Government. It would be interesting also to know how many United Kingdom prisoners are in the Republic who are from Northern Ireland and how many would be likely to transfer to our already overcrowded prisons in Northern Ireland, especially the Maze. Finally, it would be interesting to know whether the Government have done their homework.

Mr. Mellor: I would require notice of that question. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is a matter of disappointment to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that the two attempts that we have made to forestall the mischief that we apprehend, and apprehend specifically in relation to the Irish Republic, from this legislation, have failed to take effect. We would not be discharging our duty to those whom we represent and to their point of view if we were agreeable to the passage of the Bill without the safeguards that we would have wished, in some appropriate form, to see embodied in it. Therefore, we shall necessarily be opposing the Third Reading, and in view of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall say a few words about the Bill to make it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support this Bill — [HON, MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—which has been courageously brought before the House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). The hon. Gentleman and I were pitted against one and another repeatedly during the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and it is a pleasure to be able to support the Government in bringing before the House a Bill, that does not necessarily have the popular appeal of Bills, to enable persons to be brought to this country to be tried for crimes. This Bill concerns the serving of sentences once such people have been tried.
I do not agree with the argument that a Bill such as this presents a threat to our sovereignty. It does not —indeed, it is a sign of national strength that one can enjoy reciprocal arrangements on criminal justice with other countries. It is essential to the effective operation of our criminal justice system that we should have reciprocal arrangements on criminal justice. We cannot have reciprocal arrangements on criminal trials and then say that we shall not have them for criminal sentences.
I hope that this Bill is part of the increase in those reciprocal arrangements. The problem of such arrangements on criminal justice has been a thorny one. This has been exemplified and highlighted in the past few days by the allegations that safe havens are enjoyed elsewhere by people guilty of serious crimes within the United Kingdom. I hope that this Bill, which I support, will be part of the trend towards full reciprocation in criminal justice.

Mr. Forth: I welcome this, the first opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to the debate on this controversial measure. I am grateful for the fact that this


opportunity has now arisen, because all previous discussions on this Bill have been dealt with either in the other place or in Committee. It has always been a sufficiently important matter, both in principle and in application, to have deserved the most thorough possible airing. I regret that it is only at this late stage, and only at this late hour, that we have an opportunity to do so.
I have severe reservations about the Bill for three reasons. The first is that it has the whole-hearted support of the Opposition. That always makes me suspicious of any measure. It is made worse by the fact that it is one of those measures that is surrounded by that cosy, comfortable unanimity that always makes me think that there is bound to be something wrong with it.
12 midnight
The position gets worse when we realise that it is one of those measures—we have had them before and will no doubt have more in the future—which have arisen from a convention. In this case the convention comes from the Council of Europe, a most peculiar international body, the sole purpose of which seems to be to dream up conventions of this sort, which often bear no relationship to real people's problems or to the real demands of the day. But they are brought to this House, based on some sort of international argument, and we are expected to swallow them simply because they originate in those august places.
My next problem arises precisely from the word "humanitarianism", one of those cosy and pleasant words which are nowadays attached to measures which are expected to receive universal approval. When we consider the meaning of the word "humanitarianism"—promoting welfare and social reform, let us say—we are forced to ask: whose welfare and social reform are we talking about? [HON. MEMBERS: "The criminal's."] Yes, we are talking about the welfare principally of criminals—those convicted of offences—and their families. Most of us seek to uphold the principle of the family. On that basis the criminal himself is primarily responsible for the welfare of his family, and that should be the case.
I have the gravest suspicions of the measure. As I have said, it is controversial and I regret that we did not have an earlier opportunity to debate it. When introducing the measure in another place, Lord Elton said:
The Bill is a new departure in the administration of criminal law and it introduces an entirely new form of procedure."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 751.]
That aspect was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). That is why the Bill warrants more than a passing glance; it warrants close scrutiny. The Bill also involves the expenditure of public moneys over and above those which are presently provided for. In this case it is to ensure that criminals—those convicted of offences of a lesser or greater kind—are brought back from far places in order to serve out perhaps only some of their sentences in this country. I should like to return to that aspect later.
Therefore, the matter is not uncontroversial; it is a matter of some great argument, both in principle and in practice. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister said himself in Committee that there are quite a number of people who are not very much persuaded even of the principle of the Bill. I wholly agree with him.
I have some questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, if it is not too late now to raise them. The first has not yet been referred to in these proceedings and I do not believe that it was referred to in the Committee proceedings. The Bill allows for the repatriation not only of United Kingdom nationals but of-those who have "close ties" with the United Kingdom. I am anxious to know just what that might mean. It could, depending on the way in which it was interpreted, mean that if a considerable number of people had ties which were unspecified and not dealt with in the Bill, the door could be open potentially to the repatriation to our prisons of a number of people who are not nationals. That requires much more explanation than has been given.
We have the estimate of the additional cost given in the memorandum—about £100,000 per annum. I have grave doubts about that figure as well. Although, as has rightly been said earlier, the prisoners themselves will be asked to pay for the costs of their transport back—I shall be interested to know how it will be enforced in those cases where they are unable or simply unwilling to pay—more importantly there are the costs, which will be borne by the taxpayer, of providing the police escort from wherever the prisoner is being repatriated. In the case of a far-flung country that could be a very considerable cost.
There are other costs involved. Will there not be a requirement, for example, for additional prison places in Britain because of what I would call the differential effect? It is very likely that most United Kingdom nationals who are in prison in, say, Turkey, will be very anxious to come back and serve out their sentences here. I do not imagine that too many Turkish nationals would be in a great hurry to go back to the prisons in their country. If that is the case, this measure will mean increased pressure on prison places in the United Kingdom because of the differential effect. The cost estimate in the Bill is likely to be an underestimate.
I come to the important matter of sentencing policy. Lord Elton said in another place:
It seems to be generally accepted that following transfer the enforcement of a sentence, including arrangements for remission and conditional release, should be in accordance with the law and practice of the receiving state." —-[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 1983; Vol. 446, c. 756.]
The House should receive a full explanation of the meaning of that utterance.
I am greatly worried that there is more than a possibility that people who have voluntarily gone to another country and committed a crime and have been convicted and sentenced, will be repatriated and receive a lighter sentence and gain earlier remission here than they would in the other country. That raises an interesting point. We often slide into arrogance in assuming that our judicial system and remission and parole procedures are superior to those in other countries. If another country has the gall to imprison one of our nationals for a serious offence, he may, on repatriation, be released in Britain much earlier than he would have been in that country. That point raises an important issue of principle.
For all those reasons, I am unable to support this measure in its present form. I hope that we will receive a fuller explanation of some of the important questions, including my question about close ties, which may have been raised for the first time.

Mr. Bermingham: Having listened to the reasons given by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on why he cannot support the Bill, I begin to shudder at the thought of what five years in the European Parliament will do to some of those who have recently been elected. Five years in the European Parliament have seemed to make the hon. Gentleman believe that, because a measure receives all-party agreement, it must perforce be bad, and that because the Council of Europe—which has served many honourable causes and on which many hon. Members have served with distinction—had the temerity to suggest that the measure might be a good idea, he is opposed to it.
The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the idea of transferring prisoners is not new. The Americans and Canadians have entered into it already. It is realised that one of the factors that must be considered in the rehabilitation of an offender—the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this point—is the importance of family ties. Family ties should be enhanced. I note that the hon. Gentleman looks askance. I appreciate that some Conservative Members do not accept that criminals can be rehabilitated. Believe it or not, that is the objective of any incarcceration system. [Interruption.] I thought that that statement would flush out the Conservative Members.
There are two schools of thought in penology—the barbaric school which says, "Screw them into the ground and keep them there", and the humane school which says, "If someone has committed a crime, by all means incarerate him if necessary, but at least have a purpose behind that incarceration."

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should give them a gun.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman is his usual, natural, humane self again tonight.
If, during his five years in Europe, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire had spent a little time looking into the suggestions of the Council of Europe on what lies behind the convention, he might have learnt something.
It is not a question of terrorism, on to which we were sidetracked earlier, but of people incarcerated in gaols abroad, sometimes for acts that are offences in other countries but not here. To take a simple example, I know that some of the Conservative Members who have been trying to interrupt are partial to the occasional mild alcoholic beverage. If such a partiality came to the fore during a trip to the middle east they might be locked up. Is it suggested that we should not seek bilateral agreements to bring them back to serve out in this country the sentences imposed on them abroad? I agree that if one breaks the law of another state it is fair enough that one should pay the price, but let us bring the people concerned back to this country where they have family and other close ties.
That is really the principle behind the Bill and the principle that anyone with any thought for humanity should support. If the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire cared to ponder a little more generously towards humanity he might find himself able to support the Bill. Incidentally, if he had been so interested in the subject it would not have been too difficult for him to ask the Government Whips to see that he was appointed to the Second Reading Committee or to the Standing Committee

on the Bill. It is possible to apply to serve in that way if one feels strongly about an issue, although the duties involved are bound to take up a little of one's time.
I tabled an amendment in Committee to deal with the position of people who are mentally or physically handicapped. As the consent of the person is essential under the Bill, it was suggested that the Home Secretary might take the decision for people whose handicaps rendered them incapable of doing so themselves. The Minister agreed to consider the matter and I sought leave to withdraw the amendment. The Minister has now replied, in a letter dated 28 June, in accordance with the undertaking that he gave in Committee. I ask him to reaffirm for the record the contents of that reply.
The Minister suggested in his letter that a review panel would be set up by the Home Secretary similar to that which exists under the Mental Health Act and that that panel would make the decision on behalf of persons so mentally incapacitated as to be unable to do so themselves, and I agree that that might solve the problem. Such cases will be extremely rare. We should not expect many in the next 20 years. If the Minister will confirm that a panel could take the decision on behalf of prisoners or patients confined as a result of criminal proceedings to mental hospitals, and incapable of making the decision themselves, I shall rest content and thank the Minister for his efforts as I believe that his ideas and mine are ad idem on this.
I understand that a similar review panel of doctors would be established for severely physically handicapped people in the same position.
I do not often say this about the Government's measures, but I believe that this is a good Bill which goes to the root of an international problem. It seeks to bring a little humanity into the prison system and to help in the rehabilitation of those who offend abroad. I ask the House to support it.

Mr. Dubs: I welcome the Bill. It represents the culmination of many years of effort by hon. Members and people outside the House. In particular, I pay tribute to members of the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, which has. campaigned ceaselessly and energetically over many years and is to be congratulated on its success in a Bill that I hope will be passed by the House tonight. The National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad campaigned hard, with limited resources, and I am glad for the help that it gave to me and to other hon. Members in the various stages through which the Bill has passed.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked the Minister how many British citizens were detained in prisons in the Irish Republic. It is not really for me to answer on behalf of the Minister, but it may be of interest to the House to know that a question that I put to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that was answered on 8 May revealed that there were altogether 923 British citizens abroad. They were not necessarily all convicted. Some of them may have been awaiting sentence. In Second Reading Committee the Minister said that that number could probably be whittled down to 250 coming within the terms of the Bill, because it did not apply to prisoners serving short sentences.
According to the answer to my parliamentary question, there was one British subject in prison in the Irish Republic on that date, although it did not say whether he originated in Northern Ireland or on this side of the water.
I emphasise that, in supporting the Bill, there is no intention of being soft on criminals. Indeed the reverse is the case. As regards Britons serving sentences abroad, in some countries prison regimes are more onerous than ours. However, there are also other countries where prison conditions compare well with, or are even better than, those in many of the old, Victorian prisons in this country.

Mr. Forth: Would it not be reasonable to suppose in that case that a prisoner would opt to stay in more pleasant surroundings rather than to come back? The prisoner has it either way.

Mr. Dubs: The Bill rightly gives that choice to the prisoner. There is nothing wrong in that.

Mr. John David Taylor: On the point about the numbers of British prisoners in prisons in the Republic of Ireland, I suspect that the reply received by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) referred to persons from Great Britain but certainly not to persons from the United Kingdom. It was to that that I specifically directed my question. There are many from Northern Ireland, who are British citizens, in Portlaoise gaol. Most of them will ask for transfer back to Northern Ireland in the same way that IRA prisoners in English gaols continually request the Home Office for transfers back to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dubs: It is not for me to interpret the meaning of a question answered by the Government. [Interruption.] It is not for me to interpret for the right hon. Gentleman. I asked the question before the Second Reading Committee to find out how many British subjects would be involved. I received an answer, and the Minister has helpfully explained during the debate how many prisoners might benefit from the Bill. That is surely relevant, given the question asked by the right hon. Member for Strangford, about how that would affect our already overcrowded prison system. That is relevant. I was merely trying to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he does not want that help, I am sorry that I endeavoured to help him. If he wishes to proceed down the path of interpretation it is up to him to ask the Minister to explain the matter further.
I was saying a few moments ago that there is no intention in the Bill of being soft on criminals. It is a matter of common sense and justice and of protecting our society when Britons sentenced abroad are eventually released. I say that for the following reasons. There are particular and additional problems for prisoners who are not in their own countries — differences in language, culture, diet and religion. Above all, there is isolation from their families. It is not a matter of pandering to people who should have thought of that in the first place; it is a matter of ensuring that, apart from common humanity, when prisoners are released into society—and British prisoners will, in most instances, return to this country—it is in circumstances that will help them to go straight and to play their part as law-abiding citizens.
If the prisoners are helped in that process by serving the remaining part of their prison sentences in closer proximity to their families and friends, that is something of which we

should be proud because it will be helpful to us and to the way in which prisoners are eventually allowed to take part in our society. It is not only a matter of benefiting prisoners—it benefits us all.
I suspect that in many European countries the conditions for parole are better for certain categories of prisoners than they are here, especially following the Home Secretary's latest changes in and restrictions on parole for long-serving prisoners—those serving over five years for drug offences, using firearms or life sentence prisoners. It is not all one-way traffic; it is not that our system is better than those abroad.
I regret that we do not have similar legislation that would allow prisoners in any part of the United Kingdom, especially Northern Ireland, to move nearer to their families. That does not always happen. I wish it did, because that would make sense. However, it is not within the scope of the Bill.
I hope that the Bill will be passed by the House and quickly implemented. I hope that the Government will be successful in securing arrangements with as many countries as possible. It will be of benefit not only to prisoners but to our society as a whole.

Mr. Mellor: Because of the hour, I shall be very brief—[Interruption.] That is the most popular thing that I have said this evening. I have left it to a late hour, but by the law of averages we always pick a winner when we try hard enough.
It is a modest but significant humanitarian measure that I am proud to bring before the House. I take the somewhat unfashionable view—I take it nevertheless—that I am glad that there are some Bills that can command widespread support and are not the subject of partisan controversy.
I have enjoyed our debates on the Bill. I have taken seriously the amendments proposed, from whichever side of the House. Indeed, we have accepted some amendments, and the Bill has been improved thereby. I hope that all those who have played a part in the passage of the Bill are pleased to have done so. I shall not, in deference to the hour, say any more about the measure. I made my points in the Second Reading Committee. However, I warmly endorse what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said in favour of the Bill.
I certainly stand by the commitment I gave to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I shall not repeat the text of the letter because of the lateness of the hour. I shall place a copy in the Library so that it is on the record. He made a valuable point, which we have accepted.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) feels so alienated from the principles of the Bill. I am sure that he is not right to feel so because we are not saying that criminals should not be punished. We are saying that, in addition to the deprivation of liberty in prison, which is involved in any transfer under the Bill, there is no reason to impose the extra deprivation of being in a prison of a quite different character from a British prison. Some of the prisoners would not be imprisoned at all, or for the same length of time, under our penal code, so some sympathy for their predicament might be appropriate.
On my hon. Friend's specific points, there is no question of our abrogating the normal immigration rules on close ties. They will be applied with the same rigour as always. An example of a case where the Secretary of State's discretionary powers may be used is that of a foreign spouse of a British citizen who, although resident in the United Kingdom for many years, still has citizenship in his country of origin. We expect that the power will be sparingly used.
In answer to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), may I say that costs are involved in escorting prisoners, but we do not think that they will exceed our estimate. We have no reason to believe that there will be a net addition to the United Kingdom prison population as a result of the measure. If anything, a net diminution is likely, although one cannot be confident about the figures. More people are eligible to be transferred overseas from British prisons than British prisoners are eligible to be transferred from foreign prisons to Britain. I do not accept that it is less likely that prisoners in British prisons will want to be transferred back to their own countries than British prisoners in gaol overseas who will wish to return to Britain. There is no reason to think that.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the conditions under which people will be transferred. The convention provides that the normal rules of the prisons regime of the recipient country should apply. For good order and discipline in our prisons, we have provision for automatic remission and, in most cases, eligibility for parole. It would be inappropriate if those regulations did not apply to a transferred prisoner. If that transfer comes under the Council of Europe, they will apply. However, if it is necessary to negotiate bilateral treaties, one cannot guarantee what their terms will be. It would present difficulties if a country insisted that the full term should be served.

Mr. John David Taylor: If, for example, a person was in prison in Saudi Arabia because he was caught with a glass of sherry in his hand, or if someone in the Republic of Ireland was caught with a contraceptive in his hand, and sought a transfer to a prison in the United Kingdom, would it mean that they would receive immediate remission or freedom in accordance with the laws of this country?

Mr. Mellor: No. That is why the measure is not the beer-and-skittles arrangement that some seem to think it is. The person would have to serve the sentence imposed on him. That will pose problems, especially if the sentence were passed, for example, for a breach of the apartheid laws in South Africa. These arrangements are not as uncomplicated as some think. However, it is right that if the option of a transfer exists, it should exist, and if a person prefers to serve a sentence in Britain than under the conditions that would exist in some other countries, it is fair enough that he should be allowed to do so. That is the basis for the measure.
I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen representing Northern Ireland feel obliged to oppose the Third Reading. I hope that when the Bill is enacted they will not find any reason to believe that I have gone back on any commitments on the transfer of terrorist prisoners. I hope that even at this late hour they will find sufficient good in the Bill not to oppose it. I commend the Bill to the House and take pride in so doing.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 8.

Division No. 392]
[12.27 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Mather, Carol


Ancram, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ashby, David
Mellor, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Merchant, Piers


Baldry, Anthony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Batiste, Spencer
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Beith, A. J.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Bellingham, Henry
Moynihan, Hon C.


Bermingham, Gerald
Murphy, Christopher


Berry, Sir Anthony
Needham, Richard


Best, Keith
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Norris, Steven


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Osborn, Sir John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ottaway, Richard


Bright, Graham
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Powell, William (Corby)


Bruinvels, Peter
Powley, John


Burt, Alistair
Proctor, K. Harvey


Butterfill, John
Raffan, Keith


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Rowe, Andrew


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Carttiss, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Cash, William
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Chope, Christopher
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Conway, Derek
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Spencer, Derek


Couchman, James
Steen, Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Stern, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Dorrell, Stephen
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Dover, Den
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Dubs, Alfred
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Dykes, Hugh
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evennett, David
Sumberg, David


Fallon, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Fox, Marcus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Godman, Dr Norman
Tracey, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hayes, J.
Waddington, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Walden, George


Jackson, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Ivan
Watson, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Watts, John


Lilley, Peter
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Whitfield, John


Lord, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


MacGregor, John
Wolfson, Mark


Maclean, David John
Wood, Timothy


Major, John



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marland, Paul
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Mates, Michael
Mr. Archie Hamilton.




NOES


McCusker, Harold
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken
Winterton, Nicholas


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nicholson, J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Taylor, Rt Hon John David
 Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th July, the Motions relating to Trade and Industry, Education, Science and Arts,


Environment, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, and Welsh Affairs may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, and, if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him; and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, each Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Hon. Members: Object

Royal Air Force (New Training Aircraft)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): The whole House will acknowledge that this is a most important debate, in that it affects a vital area of our defence—the training of Royal Air Force pilots. It is a real and personal pleasure for me to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on the Front Bench to reply. I can only apologise for having commanded his presence at such a late hour. I anticipate that he will tell me that his remarks must be limited as the decision on the new RAF basic trainer is, in effect, sub judice. Let me assure him that the object of this debate is not to try to tease out of him statements in favour of any particular aircraft design but to set the record straight and assuage some fears. It is also my purpose to set out my reasons for believing that, this time, it would be in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the RAF to purchase the Firecracker aircraft.
Invitations to tender were issued on 18 June and it is the Government's intention that tenders should be returned by about the middle of September. There are really four contenders which comply with air staff target 412. Three are foreign and one is British. The foreign competitors in this contract have found British partners to build in part their aircraft in the United Kingdom, but it is interesting to note in respect of all the foreign designs that none came from countries which are members of the EEC and NATO, organisations that we in Britain must support. Moreover, all competitor aircraft have been ordered by, or are in service with, their own Governments; and none of those countries invited Britain to tender for their new basic trainer requirements. I stress to my hon. Friend that I do not intend in any way that my speech should be a jingoistic appeal to the Government to buy British regardless of other factors but merely to point out that in Britain we have an aircraft in the Firecracker which meets the RAF's essential technical requirements, is cheaper than the foreign competition and can demonstrate substantial exports with the result of jobs for Britain. With all these factors in favour of Firecracker, I do not think that it is wrong, in addition, to be patriotic.
In a written answer on 30 April 1984 my hon. Friend indicated that manufacturers of foreign aircraft would be asked to show the content of British equipment in their aircraft and to demonstrate any potential offset arrangements. Indeed, I understand that the tender documents ask for an offset to be demonstrated from foreign aircraft companies. As far as the content of British equipment is concerned, I regret that an answer in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne may, unwittingly, have conveyed a misleading impression. On 13 June it was put to him that the Firecracker is the only all-British design company which is capable of producing an all-British aircraft other than the engine. My noble Friend replied that, although the engines of all the four contenders for the contract are in fact of non-British design, in regard to the Firecracker no less than 90 per cent. of the equipment in terms of cost was of non-United Kingdom origin. That is not accurate.
It is true to say that the turbo Firecracker built as a civil trainer was, necessarily, to the United Kingdom certificate of airworthiness requirements and there was a large input of foreign equipment because either British equipment was not available or was too expensive to meet such requirements. The design that has been put forward for the RAF basic trainer is not the same thing at all. In his reply, I hope that my hon. Friend will remedy this unfortunate misunderstanding. In any event, there is about a 50 per cent., not 90 per cent. foreign content in the existing two Firecracker aircraft which fly under CAA rules.
The Swiss Pilatus PC9 has not yet been certificated by the Swiss authorities. This will take place at the end of 1985. It has a more powerful engine than the Firecracker and better performance figures but it is way in excess of RAF requirements. The penalty for this extra performance is a vastly increased cost of purchase. I can well understand why the RAF itself might favour such an aircraft, but can the Government, acting with financial prudence in the interests of the whole defence budget, afford this extra luxury? There is a fifty-fifty work sharing agreement with British Aerospace and it is understood that this company will manage the project and do the final assembly in the United Kingdom.
I should point out, however, that even British Aerospace is not confident of Switzerland buying Hawk aircraft if we were to purchase the PC9 trainer. So what is the advantage of buying a Swiss aircraft which is known to be more expensive? An authoritative view is that it could take 10 years for sales of the Hawk to Switzerland. May I remind my hon. Friend that of the past 350 aircraft sold to Switzerland 75 per cent. were made under licence in Switzerland and the other 25 per cent. were fitted out there. Even the latest Rapier contract will be built in Switzerland under licence. So where are the British jobs? Many hon. Members will be watching closely this aspect. My hon. Friend will know that a promise of future sales is not the same as a firm offset agreement.
The Brazilian aircraft, the Tucano, is built by Embraer which has signed an agreement with Short Brothers which provides for 100 per cent. manufacture of the Tucano in Belfast except for the first 25 aircraft which would be built in Brazil. It is a good aircraft but more expensive than the Firecracker and the co-operative agreement with Shorts for joint projects seems to favour only the Brazilians. One has to question Shorts' ability to build this aircraft in view of its other commitments. My hon. Friend will not need to be reminded that Brazil has the third largest world balance of payments deficit and, in such circumstances, it is difficult to know how we might have a viable offset which, indirectly, would be paid for by Brazil's international creditors including the United Kingdom. It is fair to say, also, that Brazil is in a politically sensitive part of the world and any purchase from Brazil could create considerable political difficulties for us here.
The Wamira AAC-A20 from Australia is a paper aircraft, as it is not due to be ready until 1986. It cannot be a serious contender even though it is tied up with Westlands which wants to sell helicopters to Australia. We would be unlikely to see even a prototype to meet in-service dates of new aircraft from 1986 to 1989 and, in any event, why should we fund the development of an Australian aircraft when we rejected a proposal by British Aerospace to fund its own project?
What, then, can Firecracker offer to Britain other than being the only British designed and built contender? First,

current figures show that the aircraft will be between 15 and 20 per cent. cheaper than the competition, a major consideration in our present economic situation and demands on our defence budget. Secondly, and very importantly, all jobs in the building of the Firecracker aircraft for the RAF would be British jobs and not just ones provided for the final assembly after the aircraft had been built abroad. In addition, further jobs will be created in order to build aircraft for the export orders that will result from RAF endorsement of the Firecracker. It is likely that those jobs would be in development areas of Britain where skilled aerospace personnel are available such as Cardiff, Deeside, Humberside or Prestwick.
Exports are a crucial factor in the award of the RAF contract. The defence sales organisation believes that there is a world market of about 1,200 turbo prop training aircraft in the next 10 to 15 years. A large number of those aircraft would be for countries which look to Britain and the RAF for their export lead. Based on sales figures of previous training aircraft, it is not unreasonable to assume that exports of 400 aircraft could follow from RAF procurement of a new turbo prop trainer. Those export sales would not go to Britain if a foreign design were selected and it would, instead, merely enhance some other country's export market at the expense of British jobs and British exports. It is true that foreign manufacturers claim that they would permit some aircraft to be built in the United Kingdom for export, but they would never allow Britain to supply the proposed markets in total, and., no doubt, they would seek to satisfy those export markets principally with their own produced aircraft. Only the selection of a British aircraft would ensure that Britain's traditional markets are not lost irrevocably.
I know that in his reply my hon. Friend will want to mention that Firecracker Aircraft Ltd is restructuring the company to allow a controlling interest to be taken by a very large group of companies and a merchant bank. That will give Firecracker the industrial base about which so much concern has been expressed on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The combination in this new company of project management, industrial capability, financial stability and product support must put at rest the Ministry's fears. My hon. Friend will be aware that the group produced the last three basic training aircraft — the Prentice, the Piston Provost and the current Jet Provost.
My hon. Friend and I share a common pride in our country and its products. Neither of us wants to see foreign competitors laughing at us. That is why it is particularly noteworthy that in volume 5/1984 of the English edition of "Interavia", a Swiss magazine, there was an article entitled "Firecracker: Looking for a Home Market". The article begins:
It is typically British to set up a competition for a new basic trainer for the Royal Air Force in which manufacturers are invited to compete with an excellent home produced aircraft. Other potential customers must wonder what can be wrong with Firecracker.
The article ends:
Final impressions: a real aeroplane, superbly responsive. No ordinary aeroplane can match Firecracker… Firecracker should make tigers, not just aeroplane drivers like those spineless small jets.
Apart from Firecracker being technically superior, cheaper and all British, it would benefit both present and future jobs in export orders rather than enhancing the prestige of a foreign competitor. There are also excellent philosophical reasons why Firecracker should be


preferred, as will be appreciated only too well by my hon. Friend. Not only is it the only British-designed and built turbo prop military training aircraft currently flying and in production, but it was also built by private initiative and private investment at no cost to the taxpayer.
The cost of purchasing 130 Firecracker aircraft as the new basic trainer is approximately the same cost as refurbishing the 25-year-old Jet Provost. Firecracker is being designed with rugged yet simple systems which require little maintenance and as a lead-in trainer to the British Aerospace Hawk. It can be used for weapons training or delivery and can be exported in this role in addition to the training one. Large export orders have resulted from RAF endorsement in the past and this potential would be destroyed if a foreign aircraft were selected.
Firecracker is in the direct tradition of private initiative in British aviation. If British initiative and skill is not encouraged in this vital area, who will ever again risk private investment in Britain's defence industry?
The importance of the aerospace industry to the British economy cannot be over-estimated. Indeed, if we had to produce an ideal example of an industry with high value added export products, we need look no further than aerospace.
Those are not my words, but those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking in September 1980. Although the foreign competitors have arrangements with British companies, both Westlands and Short Brothers have indicated that, if Firecracker were selected by the RAF, they would be prepared to participate in production of the aircraft.
This Government and the Prime Minister have set out to encourage private enterprise. It has been their stated requirement to buy British when products can create jobs, demonstrate an export market and be of the right quality and price. Firecracker has invested private money to meet a specific gap in the market that will create jobs at home and sales abroad, at a competitive price. Firecracker is also in the direct tradition of private initiative in British aviation.
We have in Britain a company which has designed and built an aircraft with private money, which meets the RAF's essential specification. It is cheaper than the foreign competition and can demonstrate the creation of jobs and a large potential export market. It has firm industrial backing and expertise to support the RAF for a 25-year in-service period. Surely the Government must support an aircraft and an organisation which have fulfilled the very industrial guidelines that the Government have laid down.
Although my hon. Friend may not be able to do more at this stage than acknowledge these comments, I have every confidence that he will take on board the points that I have made and that the Government will come to the inevitable conclusion that they should select Firecracker as the RAF's new basic trainer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys M ôn (Mr. Best) for raising this subject, and I congratulate him on obtaining the debate.
The RAF's quest for a solution to its basic training requirement in the 1990s and into the next century has

aroused a good deal of interest, and now that tenders have been invited for the four short-listed designs for a possible successor to the Jet Provost, this is a useful opportunity to take stock of where we are. While Firecracker supporters will applaud my hon. Friend's speech, others no doubt will not be best pleased.
To set the scene, I should like first to say something about the general nature of the requirement. The RAF currently has a total inventory of around 160 Mk 3 and Mk 5 Jet Provost aircraft for basic pilot training. This training is built on the assumption that the student has in fact already gained some initial flying experience either before joining the RAF or immediately afterwards. It lays the foundation for the advanced training, where the student specialises on a type of aircraft relevant to his expected future employment; thus, for example, someone destined to fly fast jet combat aircraft progresses from the Jet Provost to the Hawk.
The Jet Provost has been in service since 1960. It is outmoded and suffers from shortcomings which detract from its training effectiveness. These included outdated avionics, high fuel consumption, side-by-side seating and a poor ratio of support man-hours to flying utilisation.
The aircraft has already undergone a number of life extension and update programmes to prolong its employment at an affordable cost. Without a major refurbishment programme, it would be impossible to meet the envisaged pilot training task beyond 1987–88. The alternative is to look for a replacement aircraft.
Refurbishment would, among other things, entail the replacement of wings and the centre section of the fuselage, together in many cases with new fins and strengthening of the rear fuselage. This would enable us to keep the Jet Provost in service until the mid-1990s, after which its replacement by a new aircraft would become inevitable.
We have not yet finally decided which course —refurbishment or immediate replacement—to adopt, but we have on the evidence so far available made a provisional judgment that replacement makes better economic sense, and we are progressively exploring the replacement option with industry.
Our discussions with industry were formalised last September, when we issued air staff target 412, together with a questionnaire asking for technical and cost information. To take full advantage of the large number of trainer aircraft in this sector of the market, we gave the staff target and the questionnaire wide circulation among both national and foreign firms. We had received information on 23 candidate designs from 17 companies by the November deadline.
Some of the information supplied was not sufficiently detailed to facilitate proper analysis, but 18 were subjected to a technical and budgetary cost examination, on the strength of which they were reduced to a short list of four, the names of which we announced in a written answer on 16 March. The four are the Australian Aircraft Consortium A20, Firecracker NDN-One T, Pilatus PC9 and the Shorts-Embraer "Tucano".
We compared the costs of the designs submitted in response to AST 412 not only with each other but also with projections of the cost of refurbishing and running on the Jet Provost. The conclusion we reached was that refurbishment looked increasingly unattractive, and this was referred to during the RAF debate on 2 February. It will be appreciated that I must still exercise a certain


amount of caution on this point, in advance of having firm and detailed cost proposals for possible replacement designs, and we shall, of course, be looking to such proposals to confirm the provisional judgment.
I wish to draw attention to two features of the staff target, the seating requirement and the type of engine. The Jet Provost has side-by-side seating, but it is the RAF's policy to rely in future on tandem seating in training aircraft—the Hawk has this—because students will be more quickly acclimatised to the cockpit environment of combat aircraft. As for the engine, AST 412 invited both turbo-fan and turbo-prop designs. The Jet Provost is, of course, powered by a pure jet, but turbo-prop design has in recent years reached the stage where such engines are well matched to the training requirement and offer a credible alternative to the turbo-fan, with the advantage of significantly cheaper running costs.
Our approach to AST 412 was, however, to judge the various designs entirely on their merits, and I emphasise that the absence of turbo-fan solutions from the short list implies no operational objections to such an engine in a trainer. The adoption of a turbo-prop design would be an important innovation, and I would not wish to minimise that. One consequence would be that the syllabus could include a higher proportion of solo flying; various features of the Jet Provost demanding close supervision have meant that only 27 per cent. of basic flying training was done solo, and experience shows that it is solo flying which develops the confidence essential to a ready transition to high performance aircraft.
On the other side of the balance sheet, a turbo-prop design would necessitate an additional 15 hours in the advanced Hawk training for each fast jet student, because even the best available turbo-prop designs fall about 50 knots short of the 300 knots required for low-level navigation training and general aircraft handling exercises. Needless to say we have allowed for this in our calculations, and the overall costs associated with the turbo-prop designs would still almost certainly be appreciably lower.
Following the announcement of the short list, work proceeded on the drafting of a detailed specification for the Jet Provost replacement, and this was issued on 18 June, together with the formal invitations to tender. The documents were sent to the four principal firms and, in parallel, to the four manufacturers in the United Kingdom with which production agreements had been reached.
In addition to the well-known link-up between Shorts and Embraer, the Australian Aircraft Consortium has reached agreement with Westlands; Firecracker Aircraft Ltd. with, I understand, Huntings; and Pilatus with British Aerospace. The tenders which are due to be returned in September, will be examined along lines similar to those governing our examination of replies to the questionnaire last autumn, but the financial part of this analysis will be extended to include a definitive comparison with refurbishment of the Jet Provost, by means of an investment appraisal. I hope that the analysis will be completed by November and expect to have reached a final decision towards the end of the year.
The invitations to tender specify a numerical requirement of 130 aircraft with an option to build another 15. This is of course less than the Jet Provost fleet and reflects the expected improvement in the replacement aircraft's efficiency. The House may like to know that in parallel with the tendering process we are affording

facilities for handling and engineering evaluations by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down. We have invited Firecracker Aircraft, Pilatus and Shorts/Embraer to make their aircraft available at different times during the summer for this purpose. The Australian A20 cannot be included in this exercise, however, since it has not yet flown.
In connection with the replacement competition I should like to mention two factors which will play an important part in our deliberations and on which my hon. Friend rightly laid stress. The first is the question of the work content for firms in this country and the second that of exports.
I note my hon. Friend's remarks about what was said on the subject of Firecracker in another place by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces, who observed that 90 per cent. of its equipment in terms of cost is of non-United Kingdom origin. This referred only to the systems fitted into the aircraft, not the total aircraft including the airframe. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding that there may have been that my noble Friend was referring to the aircraft as a whole.
I should also like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the figure given was derived from the information given to us by Firecracker Aircraft Ltd. in answering the questionnaire we sent out with the air staff target last September. To some extent this is now history since things have moved on and we have now issued invitations to four short-listed firms to put in formal tenders. Clearly it is impossible for me to anticipate now what changes may be made to these aircraft in response to that invitation. Only when the tenders have been returned and evaluated will we know the true balance between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom equipment in each case. Naturally this is something we shall be looking at closely.
I think that it is now well understood that the Government are anxious to encourage our own industry to become an effective force in meeting the requirements of the armed services to the fullest possible extent. It has become standard practice to take into account the opportunities for British firms in all defence procurement, and the replacement of the Jet Provost will be no exception. Where foreign manufacturers are concerned, they know that we shall seek a clear indication of the extent to which firms in this country would be allowed to participate in production. As the House was told during the RAF debate, I would hope that any new training aircraft would at least be built in the United Kingdom. Obviously we shall not lose sight of the primary objective, which is to secure for the RAF the most cost-effective trainer to meet its needs over the next two or three decades, but within that framework we shall of course be looking very hard at all the industrial implications.
Having said that, I would add one note of caution: the industrial interfaces in the production of defence equipment are nowadays highly sophisticated, and initial impressions about the national content of a complicated product like an aircraft can be rather unreliable. Thus, for example, all four of the shortlisted designs to AST 412 would use variants of the PTO engine made by Pratt and Whitney of Canada, and all would embody British and foreign components.

Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lee: I am sorry, no. I have an extremely tight schedule.
Where export opportunities are concerned, we are aware that the prospective world market for basic trainers is fairly large.
The RAF's requirement for a future basic trainer is unusual in the scope it has presented for consideration of a very wide range of possible new designs. Inevitably, the sifting of these designs has involved disappointment for some contenders, and the process has been complicated by the need to weigh the possible replacement aircraft against the alternative of refurbishing the Jet Provost. We have, however, to ensure a solution which is both cost effective and operationally effective, and I make no apology for the length of time that that is taking. The House will understand that there is little more that I can say now that formal tenders have been invited. I am, however, confident that at the end of the day the RAF will be well satisfied with its ability to meet the training commitment, and that, moreover, we shall achieve this objective in a

way which exploits to the full the competitive potential in this crowded market place, whilst nevertheless providing the maximum reasonable opportunity for our own industry.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for answering my questions at such length. I appreciate that he has gone as far as he can in the circumstances. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I appreciate that the issue is very much sub judice. My hon. Friend expressed the hope that a foreign aircraft would be produced in Britain. I hope that the Government will make it a requirement that any foreign aircraft, if it is to be considered, will have to be built in Britain. However, I hope also that the Government will be choosing the Firecracker in due course. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o' clock.